//,   i  2  ,  X  'i 


3frnm  tlj^  ffitbrarg  of 

lrqu?att|p&  bg  Ijftm  tn 

tl|p  ICtbrarg  of 

^^riitrrton  ®lfr0l0gtral  ^mtttarg 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

{In  Cloth.) 


NEW  WORKS. 

1.  Theology.     Pp.  271.     (i2tno.)        ....     $1.00 

2.  Commentary  on  Romans.     Pp.    390.     (8vo.)     .  1.50 

NEW  EDITIONS. 

3.  Are  Souls  Immortal?    3d  Ed.     Pp.  178.    (i2mo.)        .80 

4.  Was  Christ  in  Adam?    3d  Ed.     Pp.97.     (i2mo.)        .60 

5.  Is  God  a   Trinity?    .3d   Ed.     Pp.    152.     (i2mo.)        .70 

6.  Questions  Awakened  by  the   Bible,  (being  Nos. 

3,  4  &  5  in  one  volume).       .  .         .         .         .1.25 

7.  Fetich  in  Theology.     3d  Ed.     Pp.  264.     (i2mo.)      i.oo 

8.  Theology    and    Fetich    in    Theology    (in    one 

volume).    ........  1.50 

9.  Commentary    on    Proverbs      2d    Ed.     Pp.     721. 

(8vo.) •  2.00 

10.  Metaphysics.     Pp.  430.     (8vo.)          .        .        .  1.50 

11.  Creed.     (In  paper.)          ......  .10 

Nos.  2,  6  &  8  (when  mailed  or  bought  together),           .  3.50 

2,  6,  8  &  9  (when  mailed  or  bought  together).  .       5  00 

2,  6,  8,  9,  10  &  II  (when  mailed  or  bought  together).  6.00 

Mailed  post-paid  on   receipt  of   price   and  furnished  to   the 
trade   by   the 

EVANGELICAL    REFORM    PUBLICATION   CO., 
PRINCETON,   NEW  JERSEY. 


THE    TRADE  ALSO  SUPPLIED  BY 

Charles  T  .   Dillingham,  678  Broadway,    New  York ; 
J.   B.   LIPPINCOTT  Co.,  715  &  717  Market  Street,  Philadelphia; 
A.  C.  McClurg  &  Co.,   117  to  121  Wabash  Avenue,  Chicago  ; 
C.  H.  Whiting,   168  &  170  Devonshire  Street,  Boston. 


Price,  S^-SO- 


COMMENTARY 


ON 


PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  ROMANS; 


WITH   AN 


EXCURSUS  ON  THE  FAMOUS  PASSAGE  IN  JAMES 
(Chap.   II.:   14-26). 


BY 


REV.  JOHN  MILLER. 


PRINCETON.  N.  J.: 
EVANGELICAL  REFORM  PUBLICATION  CO., 

1887. 

Mailed  post-paid  by  this  Company  on  receipt  of  price. 


Copyright, 

1887, 

By   JOHN    MILLER. 


Press  of  W.  L.   Mershon  &  Co. 
Rahway,  N   .  J. 


PREFACE. 


I.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence  "  I  will 
have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy  "  (E.  V.,  Rom.  9  :  15), 
and  the  sentence  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whomsoever  1  can 
have  mercy."  It  would  be  worth  a  life-time  of  an  exegete  to 
establish  this  rendering,  especially  if  he  added  to  it,  "So,  then, 
it  is  not  of  the  willing,  nor  of  the  running,  but  of  the  mercy 
showing  God"  (v.  16),  and  also,  "Therefore,  one  man  whom 
He  has  a  desire  after  (see  Matt.  27  :  43),  He  shows  mercy  to, 
and  another  man  whom  He  has  a  desire  after,  He  hardens  " 
(v.  20).  This  nest  of  proof  texts  which  have  done  awful 
service  for  doubt,  would  sweeten  the  whole  of  Paul  if  they  can 
give  this  bettered  idea  of  Jehovah's  sovereignty. 

n.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence  "  obedi- 
ence to  the  faith  "  (E.  V.,  i  :  5),  and  the  sentence  "  obedience 
of  faith."  One  favors  the  view  of  doctrinalism,  or  our  believ- 
ing our  way  into  the  kingdom.  The  other  makes  faith  obedi- 
ence, and  itself  a  moral  act,  or  the   beginning  of  a  better  life. 

in.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence,  "  justi- 
fied by  faith"  (E.  V.  3  :  28),  and  the  sentence,  "made  right- 
eous in  the  shape  of  faith"  {material  dative).  One  builds  a 
doctrine  jiot  lisped  of  till  the  Reformation,  and  the  other  rests 
upon  the  atonement,  and  considers  righteousness  that  imparted 
righteousness  which  Paul  means  by  what  we  have  already 
noticed  in  the  "obedience  of  faith." 

IV.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence,  "for 
that  all  have  sinned  "(E.  V.,  5  :  12),  and  the  sentence,  "on 
Him  at  whose  charges  all  did  the  sinning."  We  quit  looking 
for  an  apodosis  across  a  quarter  of  a  chapter  ;  we  put  an  end 
to  the  champion  parenthesis  of  Holy  Writ  (E.  V.,  vs.  13-17)  ; 


8  .     PREFACE, 

we  unearth  an  orthodox  sense  ;  we  shut  up  protasis  and  apo- 
dosis  in  a  single  verse  ;  and  we  reduce  this  most  baffling  sen- 
tence of  the  ten  (vs.  12-21)  to  a  similarity  to  all  the  rest  in 
its  balanced  signification,  "  Wherefore  as  by  one  man  sin  came 
into  the  world,  so  death  by  sin,  and  thus  to  all  men  death 
passed  through  on  to  Him  at  whose  charges  all  did  the  sinning." 

V.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence,  "  Until 
the  law  sin  was  in  the  world  "  (E.  V.,  5  :  13),  and  the  sentence, 
*'  As  far  as  there  was  law."  One  is  thrown  away  upon  a  case 
that  never  happens,  while  the  other  is  the  soundest  ethic.  In 
proportion  as  there  is  law,  men  sin.  And  as  all  men  have  law, 
at  least  in  an  original  conscience,  all  sin.  Even  the  Devil 
has  law.  It  is  necessary  to  accountability.  For,  as  this  same 
apostle  expresses  it,  Without  law  "  there  is  no  transgression  " 
(4  :i5)- 

VI.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence,  ^'  I  was 
alive  without  the  law  once"  (E.  V.,  7  :  9),  setting  men  to 
dreaming  when  that  could  be,  and  the  wholesome  moral  fact 
that  sin  is  the  punishment  of  sin.  Paul  is  full  of  this  concep- 
tion of  "  death."  "  The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  "  The 
strength  of  sin  is  the  law."  ''  Without  the  law  sin  is  dead  ;  " 
and  then  the  present  verse  following  immediately  after  : — "  I 
had  been  alive  without  the  law  at  any  time."  That  is,  sin 
would  be  no  cause  of  sin  but  for  a  law,  and  release  God  from 
the  obligation  of  law,  and  no  poor  sinner  would  continue  a 
moment  under  the  power  of  sin. 

VII.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence,  "  All 
things  work  together  for  good  "  (E.  V.,  8  :  28),  and  the  sen- 
tence, God  "  works  as  to  all  things  for  good  with  them  that 
love  "  Him.  In  the  other  way  it  is  true,  but  irrelevant.  In 
the  literal  way  it  agrees  with  prayer.  Prayer,  we  have  just 
been  hearing  (vs.  26,  27),  is  made  prayer  by  God  working  m 
us  and  with  us  in  intercessions  otherwise  unutterable ;  and 
Paul,  wishing  to  complete  the  idea,  adds,  "  And  we  know  " 
that  prayer  is  not  peculiar  in  this  concursus,  ''We  know 
that  He  works  as  to  all  things  for  good  with  them  that  love 
God." 


PREFACE.  9 

VIII.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sentence,  "  de- 
clared to  be  the  Son  of  God  "  (E.  V.,  i  :  4),  and  the  sentence, 
"  determined  on  as  the  *Son  of  God."  One  postulates  an 
eternal  Sonship,  and  that  it  is  only  ''declared"  in  time.  The 
other  ranges  itself  with  such  expressions  as  "  Mine  elect  ;  "  it 
agrees  with  the  account  "  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  or- 
dained "  (E.  v.,  Acts  17  :  31,  the  same  word,  op/^w,  determined 
on)  ;  it  agrees  with  Gabriel  where  he  is  satisfied  with  the  word 
''be  called"  (E.  V.,  Lu.  i  :  35)  ;  it  agrees  with  Gabriel's 
reasons  marked  by  his  expressive  " therefore"  and  with  Paul's 
(see  Commentary)  ;  and  best  of  all,  it  agrees  with  the  same 
root  three  sentences  before  (Rom.  i  :  i),  employed  as  of  Paul 
himself,  and  translated  by  King  James,  "  separated  unto  the 
gospel  of  God." 

Let  our  Preface  deal  with  samples,  therefore.  We  are  con- 
tent that  way.  If  they  are  new,  they  should  be  watched.  If 
they  are  true,  they  should  be  treasured.  But  if  they  are  both 
new  and  true,  that  is  not  what  has  roused  us  to  the  work. 
These  and  a  multitude  of  others  are  not  simply  new  texts, 
adding,  if  they  are  supported  by  the  Greek,  new  paragraphs 
to  the  Word  of  God,  but  they  bring  to  bay  a  concerted  system 
of  mistakes.  Protestantism  has  ascribed  too  little  morality  to 
God,  and  demanded  too  little  morality  of  men.  Paul  has 
been  the  arch-priest  of  horrors,  and  the  world  is  beginning  to 
move.  To  sweeten  Paul  is  not  only  hermeneutically  right,  but 
theologically  the  thing  required,  as  the  curse  of  the  Reformed 
just  now  is,  that  they  build  Rome  with  a  faith  that  has  no 
works,  and  place  at  the  top  of  their  creed  Sovereignty  instead 
of  Holiness. 

JOHN   MILLER. 

Princeton,  Oct.  16,  1885. 


COMMENTARY. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    CERTAIN    ROMANS    OF  PAUL    THE    APOSTLE. 

Paul  does  not  call  himself  "  the  apostle  to  the  Romans  "  (E.  V.), 
for  he  had  possibly  never  seen  Rome.  The  like  mistake 
is  made  by  the  Revisionists,  It  occurs  in  all  his  epistles.  We 
are  not  to  say  "  Apostle  to  the  Corinthians,"  or '*  Apostle  to 
the  Hebrews  "  (E.  V.  and  Re.),  but  "  Epistle  to  "  each  of  these 
different  people.  Moreover  we  are  not  to  say,  "  Epistle  to  the 
Romans^''  but  "  Epistle  to  Romans"  for  it  was  written  only  to  a 
few  in  Rome.  Paul  wrote  to  "  the  Church  of  God,"  or  to 
"  the  saints,"  or  to  "  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (Rom.  1:7; 
I.  Cor.  1:1;  Eph.  1:1).  Hence  there  is  reason  for  the  word- 
iniT,  "  The  Epistle  to  Romans  (or  to  certain  Komans)  of  Paul 
the  Apostle." 

But  these  titles,  writ  as  we  may  please,  were  not  inspired  ; 
they  are  of  uncertain  date  ;  they  are  different  in  different 
MSS.  ;  they  were  sometimes  changed  ;  were  not  always  neces- 
sarily correct  ;  and,  in  the  instance  of  the  "  Epistle  to  certain 
Hebrews,"  not  necessarily  to  be  relied  on  to  authenticate  that 
as  an  ''epistle  of  Paul"  (E.  V.  and  Re,). 


CHAPTER  I. 

I.  Paul,  a  bondman  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an 
Apostle,  having  been  set  apart  to  a  Gospel  of  God. 
I.  "Paul;"  Paul's  Greek  name.  It  occurs  first  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  Acts  (v.  9)  ;  "  Then  Saul,  who  also  is 
called  Paul."  Saul  is  Hebrew,  and  va^diXi'i  asked  for  ;  and  Paul 
is  Greek,  and  means  little.  All  kindred  Greek  is  transferred 
into  the  English  in  two  syllables  ;  as,  for  example,  Festus,  not 
Fest,  Justus,  not  Just,  Gains,  not  Gai.  That  Saulos  should  be 
rendered  Saul  is  natural,  for  that  is  the  shape  of  the  word  in 
the  Hebrew  language  ;  but  that  Faulos  should  be  rendered 
"  Paul,''  is  probably  to  be  accounted  for  by  what  is  accident  in 
this  similarity  of  sound  ;  and  perhaps  to  the  same  sort  of  acci- 
dent of  sound  may  be  chiefly  attributed  the  whole  choice  of 
the  name.  *'  Paul,'"  moving  about  among  the  Greeks,  did 
what  was  customary  then,  took  a  name  from  among  that  peo- 
ple, and  called  himself  ^'  Pauliis ;''  not  necessarily  because  he 
was  little  (Augustine,  De  Spir.  et  Lit.  6,  7,  vol.  x.  p.  207),  nor 
probably  in  honor  of  Sergius  Paulus,  who  is  marked  as  his 
convert  in  the  very  same  passage  (Acts  13  :  7-9,  see  Jerome)  ; 
but  as  Joseph  was  called  Hegesippus,  and  Eliakim,  Alkimos, 
because  of  the  alliteration,  or  because  of  the  affinity,  of  some 
sort,  the  one  for  the  other.  We  may  say  with  confidence  that 
there  is  nothing  practically  discoverable  that  is  of  moment  in 
the  change.  "  A  bond-man."  Aoi-Ao^  is  from  dku)  to  bind.  It 
is  a  prime  rule  for  exegetes  to  translate  by  the  original  mean- 
ing as  far  as  possible.  The  force,  too,  of  general  usage  should 
be  felt  in  assigning  a  signification.  We  shall  presently  see  that 
^^  declared'' \s  a  most  vicious  rendering  in  the  fourth  verse, 
because  in  the  seven  other  places  where  the  original  occurs,  it 
never  once  means  declared,  hut  always  '■^ determined ofi''  So 
'■''but''  (E.  V.)  is  a  very  vicious  translation  in  Gal.  2  :  16  ;  for 


CHAPTER  I.  13 

of  the  fifty-eight  other  places  where  the  Greek  tav/^^  occurs, 
not  one  will  bear  the  meaning  of  but,  and  in  no  other  case  does 
our  version  imagine  so.  An  attention  to  this  rule  alone  would 
make  a  vast  difference  as  against  the  prepossessions  of  trans- 
lators. AoiAoc  is  found  a  hundred  and  twenty-two  times  in  the 
New  Testament.  '' Bondman''  will  translate  it  always.  It 
literally  means  a  slave.  But  as  it  would  be  needlessly  harsh  to 
say,  "  Well  done  good  and  faithful  slave"  (Matt.  25  :  21),  or 
"He  sent  and  signified  it  by  His  angel  to  His  slave,  John  " 
(Rev.  I  :  i),  or,  "These  men  are  slaves  of  the  Most  High 
God  "  (Acts  16  :  17),  we  sacrifice  the  advantage  where  slave 
would  be  better,  as,  for  example,  "  slave  of  sin  "  (Jo.  8  :  34),  or 
"slaves  of  corruption"  (2  Pet.  2  :  19),  and  translate  every- 
where bondman.  That  leaves  the  word  i^iaKovo^;  {deacon),  which 
has  grown  technical  in  an  office  of  the  church,  to  mean  a 
higher  "  servant;'  and  to  be  translated  in  every  instance  in  that 
way  in  its  thirty  passages.  "  Faui;'  then,  ^^  a  bondman,"  bought 
with  Christ's  blood,  and  sealed  forever  to  his  service  ! 

"  Of  Jesus  Christ."  These  names  are  of  different  languages, 
and  one  describes  the  God  in  our  Redeemer,  and  the  other  the 
Man.  ''  Jesus  "  was  a  corruption  of  Joshua  ;  and,  though 
Gabriel  assigned  the  name,  yet  it  was  a  common  name  (often 
under  the  form  of  Jason)  at  this  time  among  the  Israelites. 
Joshua  was  a  name  given  by  MosflB,  (Num.  13  :  8,  16).  Joshua's 
original  name  was  Hoshea.  Hoshea  meant  one  who  saves, 
Moses  added  the  idea  of  Jchcn'ah's  salvation.  And  though  the 
name  fell  back  to  Jeshua  (Neh.  8,  17),  and  in  the  Greek  to 
"  Jesus,"  which  means  little  more  than  help,  yet,  to  a  Jew's  eye 
it  had  all  its  early  significance,  and  the  mere  shrinkage  by  use  did 
not  blot  out  Jehovah's  part  of  it.  "  Christ;'  on  the  contrary, 
mt:xx\i  Anointed.  It  was  a  translation  of  J/m/V?//.  And  as  God 
is  not  anointed,  it  is  the  title  of  the  Man.  "  Jesus  "  is  Christ's 
Godlike  name  as  being  the  Jehoz'ah  who  saves.  "  Christy  "  is  a 
human  designation,  not  simply  as  of  one  anointed  \o  oft^ce,  He 
being  Prophet,  Priest  and  King,  but,  as,  what  that  unction 
means,  anointed  of  the  Spirit,  not  simply  in  all  these  respects, 
officially,  but  in  all  respects,  and  chiefly  in  unspotted  holiness. 


14  ROMANS. 

and  in  a  form  hereafter  to  be  explained  of  moral  recovery 
(6  :  7).  Paul,  therefore,  pictures  himself  as  a  slave  of  this  unspot- 
ted God-Man. 

"Called  to  be  an  apostle."  ''A  called  apostle''  would  be 
more  after  the  Greek,  but  then  "  called  saints  "  in  the  seventh 
verse  would  be  ambiguous,  and  might  mean  named  saints. 
Therefore,  to  translate  alike  in  so  near  a  context,  we  say 
''called  to  be''  (E.  V.  &  Re.). 

The  word  hiroaToM  occurs  but  once  in  the  Septuagint 
scriptures.  "  I  am  sent  to  thee  as  a  hard  messenger"  (i  Ki. 
14 :  6).  'ATOffroA^,  which  occurs  four  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  always  means  apostleship  (E.  V.),  occurs  ten 
times  in  the  Septuagint,  and  has  the  wildest  variety  of  mean- 
ing. It  means  ''pestilence"  (Jer.  32  :  36,  E.  V.)  ;  it  means 
gift  or  "present"  (i  Ki.  9  :  16,  E.  V.)  ;  it  means  "plants" 
(Cant.  4  :  13,  E.  V.)  ;  it  means  some  sort  of  missive  in  some 
of  the  other  places.  It  is  clear  that  these  words  were  of  no 
technical  use  two  centuries  before  Christ.  Our  only  light  upon 
their  meaning,  therefore,  is  in  two  facts  :  first,  that  Christ 
"  chose  twelve  whom  also  He  named  apostles  "  (Lu.  6  :  13)  to 
be  eye-witnesses  (i  Cor.  9  :  i)  of  His  ministry  and  the  first 
preachers  and  founders  of  His  church  (Eph.  2  :  20),  and  sec- 
ond, that,  true  to  this  origin  of  the  title,  a  certain  fourteen  men, 
viz.  Christ's  original  twelve,^d  one  appointed  in  the  place 
of  one  of  them  (Acts  12  :  26),  and  one  miraculously  appointed 
afterward,  to  wit,  Paul,  always  appropriated  this  name  ;  and 
that  in  the  eighty-one  New  Testament  passages  where  it  oc- 
curs, it  is  used  of  no  one  else,  save  once  of  Christ  (Heb.  3  :  i), 
twice  of  "false  apostles"  (2  Cor.  11  :  13  ;  Rev.  2  :  2),  twice 
of  Barnabas  (Acts  14  :  4,  14),  once  of  a  man  and  woman 
probably  (Rom.  16  :  7),  twice  of  common  messengers  (2  Cor. 
8  :  23  ;  Phil.  2  :  25),  once  of  Paul  and  two  of  his  companions 
(i  Thess.  2  :  7),  and  once  of  "  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  " 
(Gal.  I  :i9)  ;*  from  all  which  we  are  to  infer  that  "  apostle"  like 
presbyter  (Acts  2:17;!  Pet.  5:5);  and  like  deacon  (Jo.  2  :  5,  9), 

*  Perhaps  it  is  not  altogether  certain  that  this  James  was  not  the  son  of 
Alpheus,  and,  therefore,  from  the  first,  one  of  the  twelve. 


CHAPTER  I.  15 

and  \\\it  church  (Acts  19  :  32,  40),  and  like  spirit  (Lu.  8  :  55), 
and  like  flesh  (Lu.  24  :  39),  had  not  left  their  primary  mean- 
ing and  hardened  altogether  in  the  Greek  into  ecclesiastical 
terms,  but  that  they  had  done  so  enough  to  be  usually  dehnite, 
and  that  Paul  was  "  called  to  be  an  apostle  "  in  the  sense  of 
being  one  of  fourteen  men  designated  by  Christ  to  be  "eye- 
witnesses of  His  majesty."  In  all  other  senses  they  were  ofificial 
''ciders  "  (i  Peter  5  :  i),  instructed  by  God  to  make  elders  of 
others  (i  Tim.  i  :  6),  but  not  instructed  to  make  apostles,  even 
though  hundreds  of  men  had  seen  their  common  Master. 

"Having  been  set  apart."    Commentators  have  lost  much 
by  not  studying  this  word  in  connection   with  that  translated 
''  declared''  m  verse   fourth.     'Op/;w  coming  f rom  o^of  a  <^^////^/- 
ary,  means  to  bound  oH,  or  fix  a  limit.     It  occurs  eight  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  every  case  means  to  determine 
or  determine  upon  {terminus,  limit).     The  word  is  so  important 
that  we  will  quote  every  case.     "  The  Son  of  Man  goeth  as  it 
was   determined"  (Lu.  22  :    22,  E.  V.).      "  Hhn  being  deliv- 
ered by  the  determinate  counsel  "  (Acts  2  :  23,  E.  V.).     *'  It  is 
He  which  was  determined  upon  (ordained  E.  V.)  of  God  to  be 
the  judge  of  quick  and  dead"  (Acts  10  :  42).     ''  The  disciples 
determined  to  send  relief"  (Acts  11  :  29,  E.  V.).     "  Hath  de- 
termined the   times  before  appointed"   (Acts  17  :  26,  E.  V.). 
''  A  day  in  the  which  He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by 
that  man  whom   He  hath   determined   upon  (ordained,  E.  V., 
Acts  17  :  31).     "Who  was  determined  on  as  God's  Son  (de- 
clared to  be  the   Son  of  God,  E.  V.)  in  power"  (Rom.  i  :  4). 
"  Again,  He  determines  upon  (limiteth,  E.  V.)  a  certain  day  " 
(Heb.  4  :  7).     It  will  be  noticed  that   it  is  translated    (E.  V.) 
but  once  declared,  and  that  under  an  obvious  theological  bias, 
being  never  so  understood  in  the  Septuagint,  and  really  without 
any  warrant  in  the  general  usage  of  the  language.     And  yet  to 
say  "  appointed''  would  be  too  far  from  the  meaning  of  op,:u.     A 
boundary  is  set>r  reasons.    "  Appointed  the  Son  of  God  "  would 
be   too   naked.      '' Determined  upon"  is  the  very    word,   and 
agrees  with  the  speech  of  Gabriel,—"  Therefore  "—as  though 
there  were  intrinsic  reasons,  apart   from   mere   appointment— 


1 6  ROMANS. 

"  Therefore  "—because  "  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ; 
therefore,  also,  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God"  (Matt,  i  :  35).  Let  it  be 
noticed  farther  \.\i2X predestmed  {Y..  V.)  is  the  same  verb  com- 
pounded with  a  preposition.  Deterniined  upon  beforehand  (ttpo) 
is  the  meaning.  Predestined  is  a  little  too  arbitrary,  like 
appoifited.  "  Whom  He  did  foreknow,  them  He  also  did  deter- 
mine upon  beforehand"  (not  predestmate  E.  V.,  8  :  29).  The 
word  is  a  delicate  one,  and  unites  the  ideas  of  appointment 
and  of  reasons  for  it,  just  as  exist  in  the  fixing  of  a  boundary. 
Now  it  is  this  opiCw,  with  a  different  preposition  before  it, 
viz.  cTTo,  out  from  a?nong,  or  away  fro?n,  that  we  are  concerned 
with  at  present.  It  was  fitting  that  Paul  should  have  a  differ- 
ent description  from  his  Master.  Christ  "  was  determined 
upon  as  God's  Son  "  at  once  (aorist),  and  without  any  calling 
out  from  among  the  wicked.  Paul  had  been  [perfect)  a-n-o 
determined  upon,  that  is  bounded  off,  or  set  apart,  called  out  from 
very  bad  relations,  and  that  not  at  a  single  stroke  (like  Christ), 
such  as  the  aorist  would  express,  but  by  successive  fixings  of 
his  case  {perfect  tense),  not  only  "  from  (his)  mother's  womb  " 
(Gal.  I  :  15),  where  this  word  afopi^u  is  also  used,  but  under 
Gamaliel,  and  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  and  in  successive 
stages  of  divine  preparation.  "Separated"  (E.  V.)  would  do 
very  well,  but  it  is  awkward  English,  and  still  more  awkward 
where  it  speaks  of  being  "  separated  from  my  mother's  womb  " 
(Gal.  I  :  15).  Set  apart  w'lW  answer  everywhere.  Set  apart  the 
righteous  from  the  wicked  (Matt.  13  :  49)  ;  set  them  apart 
from  each  other  (Matt.  25  :  32)  ;  set  apart  the  sheep  from  the 
goats  (ib.)  ;  set  you  aside  or  apart  (Lu.  6  :  22)  ;  set  apart  for 
me  Barnabas  and  Saul  (Acts  13  :  2)  ;  set  the  disciples 
aloof  or  apart  (Acts  19  ;  9)  ;  be  ye  set  apart  (2  Cor. 
6  :  17);  he  who  set  me  apart  from  my  mother's  womb  ;  put 
himself  aloof  or  set  himst-lf  apart  (Gal.  2  :  12)  ;  these  are  all 
the  nine  instances  of  d<popi^u  in  the  N.  T.  Greek,  and  answer 
perfectly  to  show  that  Paul  meant  that  he  had  been  "  set  apart  " 
from  other  wicked  men  to  preach  the  gospel. 


CHAPTER  I. 


'7 


"  A  Gospel  of  God."  We  do  not  say  *'  a  good  fnessage  of 
God,''  because  the  word  had  hardened  enough  into  what  was 
technical  to  make  that  awkward  in  many  passages.  "  Accord- 
ing to  my  good  message  "  (2  :  16),  or  **  the  good  message  which 
I  have  good  messaged  "  (i  Cor.  15  :  i),  or  "the  good  message 
of  the  circumcision  "  (Gal.  2  :  7),  are  sentences  which  show 
that  the  word  had  escaped  from  its  original  simplicity.  ''  A 
gospel  of  God  "  means  a  gospel  given  by  God  (and  not  a 
gospel  about  God),  as  will  appear  in  the  succeeding  verse. 

2.  As  to  which  He  announced  Himself  before  by  His 
prophets  in  holy  scriptures. 

''Promised''  (E.  V.)  would  do  well  enough  were  it  not  for 
the  unhappy  English.  *'  Glad  tidings  promised"  is  not  just  the 
expression  we  would  choose.  Ati  annunciation  before  annou?iced 
is  more  what  would  come  under  a  Grecian's  eye,  as  the  verb 
and  the  substantive  are  from  the  same  ayykl^xj.  But  the  verb 
is  in  the  middle,  and  naturally  means  announced  himself. 
As  announcing  oneself  as  to  a  thing  which  is  of  a  promissory 
sort,  is  virtually  to  promise  it,  it  is  used  that  way  (E.  V.) 
thirteen  times  in  the  N.  T.  On  the  other  two  occasions  of  its 
use  the  word  professing  is  brought  in  (E.  V.),  ''which  some 
professing  have  erred  concerning  the  faith  "  (i  Tim.  6  :  21)  ; 
"professing  godliness"  (i  Tim.  2  :  10).  The  compound  with 
irpo  (before)  which  occurs  but  once,  and  that  in  the  present 
passage,  may  very  properly,  therefore,  be  rendered  ("  the  glad 
annunciation)  as  to  w/iich  He  anfiounced  Himself  before  (or 
which  He  announced  for  Himself  before),  by  His  prophets  in 
holy  scriptures."  That  there  should  be  no  article  before 
"  scriptures  "  was  not  unnatural,  for  it  v/as  not  every  scripture 
that  foretold  the  gospel.  But  we  are  to  notice  how  the  ample 
predictions  which  there  were,  are  thus  early  announced,  and 
everywhere  brought  out  by  Paul,  to  confirm  his  representations. 

His  book  might  be  called.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  proved  out 
of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

3.  Concerning  His  Son,  the  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord",  who 
came  into  being  of  David's  seed  through  flesh. 

"Concerning."     Scripture   is  often   ambiguous,  and   care- 


1 8  ROMANS. 

lessly  and  purposely  so  when  the  ambiguity  makes  not  the  slight- 
est difference  (vs.  6,  17  ;  5  :  5,  17  ;  13  :  14  ;  i6  :  2).  The  gospel 
"  concerjiing  "  and  the  announcing  of  himself  "  concertiitig " 
would  amount  to  the  same  thing.  As  the  very  Greek  for 
ajiminciation  {hyykXktJ)  is  found  in  both  noun  and  verb,  the 
question  as  to  which  the  preposition  belongs  to  is  not  worth 
settling,  and  the  comments  as  between  Lange  and  Meyer  are 
based  upon  nothing,  and  could  not  touch  a  shade  of  the 
significance,  even  if  they  could  be  made  certain  either  way. 

"His  Son."  This  great  personage  Paul  announces  to  be  the 
sum  of  the  gospel,  and  proceeds  at  once  to  give  a  definition 
the  most  complete  in  scripture.  "  The  Jesus  Christ  oiir  Lord 
who."  Now  we  ought  to  watch  every  word.  For  there  is 
nothing  like  them  in  elaborateness  as  to  the  Son  of  the  Father. 
"  Who  came  into  being. "  He  ^'' came  into  deing"  then.  Let 
us  fix  the  meaning  of  that  verb  first  of  all.  It  is  used  seven 
hundred  times  or  more  in  the  New  Testament.  Therefore 
what  we  are  about  to  announce  is  very  decisive.  In  all 
these  seven  hundred  instances,  if  associated  with  a  nomina- 
tive in  the  predicate,  it  means  became  ;  as  for  example,  '''•the 
Word  became  flesh.''  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  the  whole  pre- 
dicate itself,  it  means  originated  j  as  for  example  ^'  the  ivorldcajne 
to  be.''  Its  primary  meaning  is  not  to  be  born  (so  say  most 
lexicographers),  or,  if  it  is,  that  has  long  sunk  into  a  least 
frequent  meaning.  The  text,  therefore,  is  very  manageable, 
unless  the  words  that  follow  in  some  way  alter  or  specialize 
the  sense,  which,  we  may  say  beforehand,  they  do  not  do. 

"Of  David's  Seed."  A  common  reader  would  understand 
that  the  '•'■  Son  of  God"  came  into  being  nineteen  centuries 
ago  as  a  descendant  of  David.  If  he  had  heard  of  the 
^'■Eternal  Sonship"  he  might  look  into  his  concordance  for 
other  sentences  that  would  trace  farther  back,  and  these  he 
would  never  find. 

All  the  words,  "  Son,"  with  a  big  S,  centre  about  Nazareth. 
The  only  trace  of  what  is  otherwise  is  in  Daniel  (Dan.  3  :  25). 
It  is  from  the  lips  of  a  heathen.  It  is  without  the  article.  It 
is  not  "  the  Son  of  God  "  (E.  V.),  but  "  a  son  of  a  god."     The 


CHAPTER  I.  19 

*'  gods  "  of  Nebuchadnezzar  had  been  quoted  to  him  in  the 
plural  (E.  v.),  see  the  twelfth  verse,  but  a  few  sentences 
before.  There  is  not  a  single  passage  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  that  asserts  a  "  Son  "  then  existing,  or  even  alludes 
to  such  a  person  in  all  those  four  thousand  years. 

God  was  existing  ;  and  we  long  for  the  opportunity  when 
we  can  explain  this.  And  Ciod  became  incarnate  in  the  child 
of  Mary.  But  God  was  not  before  incarnate,  and  therefore 
had  no  earlier  ''  So/i."  Or,  rather  (that  we  may  not  hasten 
anything),  it  appears  by  this  third  verse,  that  there  came  into 
being  of  the  seed  of  David,  nineteen  centuries  ago,  "  t/ie  Jesus 
Clu'ist  our  Lord,"'  who  therein  and  thereupon  became  "  M^ 
Son  of  God'' 

"Through  flesh."  '' According  to  the  flesh''  {Y^.N .)  would 
answer  very  well,  but  it  is  more  awkward  than  through,  and  is 
still  less  eligible  when  applied  to  the  Spirit  (v.  4).  One  sense 
of  Ka-a  is  ''by  virtue  of,"  so  says  Robinson  ;  though,  as  he 
represents,  ''  the  idea  of  accordance  lies  at  the  bottom  ;  "  as 
for  example  *' through  ignorance"  (E.  V.,  Acts  3  :  17).  "Is 
it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  («ard)  any  cause  ?  " 
(E.  v.,  Matt.  19  :  3).  ''  Through  flesh,"  therefore,  means, 
that  by  His  sinful  mother  He  became  the  child  of  David,  and 
*' ////w/^// "  this  fleshly  origin  came  into  being  nineteen  cen- 
turies ago. 

Though  there  is  no  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
speaks  of  the  "  Son  "  as  anciently  existing,  yet  it  is  time  now  to 
say  that  there  is  a  passage  that  speaks  of  the  ''  Son"  and  that 
a  very  celebrated  one.  It  is  quoted  three  times  by  the  apostle 
(Acts  13  :  iT,\  Heb.  i  :  5  ;  5  :  5).  "Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this 
day  have  I  begotten  Thee  "  (Ps.  2:  7).  Here  is  a  distinct 
assertion  of  a  begetting  at  a  certain  time.  All  agree  that  it  is 
a  Messianic  prophecy.  Its  prophet-guise  ///  situ  is  quite  spec- 
tacular. No  one  doubts  that.  Men  have  made  endless  efforts 
to  get  rid  of  this  sentence.  Some  have  said  that  ''begotten" 
means  exhibited  or  manifested  (Calvin  on  Ps.  2  :  7).  Some 
fly  to  two  begettings,  one  eternal  and  one  in  Nazareth,  imagin- 
ing,   therefore,  two  Sonships   (Hodge,   Syst.   Theol.,  Vol.   i  : 


20  ROMANS. 

p.  474).  Some  expound  thus  : — "  Thou  art  My  Son,  this  dajr 
I  am  Thy  Father  "  (Alexander)  ;  others,  "  Thou  art  My  Son  ; 
this  day  I  declare  it  "  (Calvin),  making  the  begetting  a 
mere  asseverance.  Some  say  that  Acts  13  :  2iZ  spoils  the 
argument  for  a  local  and  temporal  creation  (Meyer,  Calvin),, 
still  another  objector  overthrowing  this  last  by  showing  that 
the  "  resurrection  "  there  spoken  of  is  not  the  rising  on  the 
third  day,  but  really  the  raising  up  or  originating  that 
we  are  now  contending  for  (Hodge).  Which  comments 
might  be  pardoned  if  there  were  strong  scriptures  to  make 
them  necessary  ;  but,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  next  verse,  when 
the  time  might  seem  to  have  come  to  speak  of  the  Spirit  as 
distinct  from  the  flesh,  or  an  eternal  Sonship  as  distinct 
from  that  in  Galilee,  the  trend  is  the  other  way,  and  the 
very  look  of  the  English  shows  the  violence  of  the  steps 
against  it. 

V.  4.  For  example,  bpiaQkq  does  not  mean  "  declared  "  (E.  V.). 
When  '■^begotten''  (Ps,  2  :  7)  is  tortured  into  '''■  majtifested'* 
(Calvin),  just  as  ^'■except''  (Gal.  2  :  16)  is  strained  into  ^^ but'* 
(E.  V.)  in  a  case  already  mentioned,  the  very  violence  of  the 
strain  should  turn  us  against  the  commentator.  'Opii;^  means 
bounding  off  or  determining,  and  the  very  attempt  to  under- 
stand it  as  '■^declared''  (E.  V.)  should  awaken  our  full  suspi- 
cion. The  fourth  verse  thoroughly  agrees  with  the  third. 
For  while  the  third  announces  that  the  '^  Son  "  originated,  the 
fourth  favors  that  view  by  announcing,  not  that  He  was 
*' declared"  (E.  V.)  what  He  had  been  ages  before,  or,  to  take 
in  the  whole  view,  not  that  He  was  born  "  Son  "  in  one  nature 
and  ^'declared"  Son  in  another,  as  though  He  had  really  been 
that  from  all  eternity,  but,  according  to  the  simple  Greek,  that 
He  came  into  being  such  as  He  was  by  a  fleshly  birth,  and  was 
^^  determined  upon  "  (Acts  11  :  29,  E,  V.)  or  '' ordained"  (Acts 
10  :  42,  E.  V.)  "  Son  of  God"  in  certain  ways  or  through  cer- 
tain agencies,  as  a  thing  happening  in  time,  and  justifying  the 
language,  '*  This  day  have  I  begotten  Thee." 

'Opiadeiq,  therefore,  receiving  this  interpretation,  and  being 
refused  the  sense  "  declared"  (E.  V.),  as  being  altogether  too 


CHAPTER  I.  2  1 

biassed,  and  of  design,*  there  remain  the  other  expressions  of 
the  fourth  verse,  which  singularly  agree  with  the  idea  of  a 
"  determined  upon  "or  appointed  Sonship. 

4.  Who  was  determined  upon  as  God's  Son,  in  power, 
through  a  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  a  rising  of  those  dead. 

Before  we  discuss  these  words,  let  us  say  particularly  what 
we  imagine  them  to  establish.  They  do  not  affect  the  question 
whether  Christ  is  God.  For,  if  the  one  personal  Jehovah 
descended  upon  Mary,  and  was  begotten  into  her  Son,  that  is 
as  much  a  Godhead  as  for  a  Second  Person  in  a  Trinity  so  to 
descend  and  be  begotten.  It  would  be  fatal,  of  course,  to  a 
Trinity,  and  fatal  to  the  use  of  the  word  Son  before  the  incar- 
nation. But  the  Deity  of  Christ,  which  is  the  great  fulcrum 
of  salvation,  would  be  more  rather  than  less.  Let  that  be  well 
remembered. 

Moreover,   we  should   not  be  departing  from  the  general 

*  Olshausen  has  a  very  tell-tale  note  on  this  expression.  "The  choice 
of  the  word  opH^eadat,  however,  has  led  several  ancient  and  modern  com- 
mentators to  understand  the  words  in  an  entirely  different  sense.  This 
word,  in  the  language  of  the  N.  T.,  means  '  to  fix,  determine,  choose  for 
some  purpose'  (Lu,  22  :  22  ;  Acts  2  :  23  ;  10  ;  42  ;  17  :  26).  From  this  has 
been  derived  the  translation,  '  God  has  chosen,  appointed  Hira  to  be  the  Son 
of  God,' which  would  at  once  lead  to  the  Jewish  view  of  Christ's  subordi- 
nate character,  viz.,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  not  in  his  essential  being, 
but  only  by  God's  election  {h/.oyr/)  (Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Tr}'ph.  Jud. 
p.  267).  In  close  connection  with  this  stands  another  interpretation,  which 
makes  dpcadhroq  identical  in  meaning  with  Trponpiadivroc,  a  word  which 
Epiphanius  has  even  admitted  into  the  text.  Accordingly  the  expression  is 
translated '  pradcstinatus  est,  and  referred  to  God's  decree  with  respect  to 
the  incarnation  (Iren.  adv.  haer.  3  :  22,  23.  August,  de  praedestin.  sanct. 
c.  15).  But  both  views,  to  say  nothing  of  the  untenableness  of  the  former, 
on  doctrinal  grounds  must  be  rejected  [I]  ;  because,  from  the  connection,  it 
is  manifestly  not  the  decree  of  God,  but  the  proof  before  men  of  Xt's  Divine 
Sonship  that  is  here  in  question.  No  other  course,  therefore,  remains  but  to 
take  opLZ.kafiaL  in  the  sense  to  declare,  to  exhibit  as  something.  *  *  *  * 
There  is  indeed  some  difficulty  in  proving  that  opi^coftac  is  ever  used  in 
this  sense.  For  opi^u  means  originally  to  defme  the  limits,  opi^eodai,  to 
determine  limits  for  one's  self,  /.  ^.,  to  determine.  A'cf  passage  in  which  it 
means  directly  declarare,  ostendere  is  to  be  found  either  in  the  profane  or 
scriptural  writings." 


22  ROMANS. 

belief  that  Christ  is  not  God  in  the  sense  that  the  man  became 
transmutedly  divine.  Nobody  beUeves  that.  Impossible  infi- 
nitudes may  be  imputed  to  Christ's  human  nature  (Sweden- 
borg,  Crosby,  Beecher),  but,  looked  at  in  front,  no  man  says 
that  the  man  becomes  God.  The  uniform  doctrine  with  us 
all  is  that  the  man  is  so  united  with  the  God  as  to  become  one 
person,  and  that  this  composite  King  blends  the  two  natures 
into  one  Redeemer.  It  will  be  seen  how  carefully  Paul  talks 
of  the  notion  of  equality.  He  does  not  say,  speaking  of  the 
man  as  he  stood  in  Jewry,  that  he  was  "  equal  (laov) 
with  God  "  (E.  v.,  Phil.  2  :  6).  This  is  a  sad  translation. 
Paul's  language  is  very  express.  It  ought  to  have  been  con- 
sidered. He  says,  "  Being  in  the  form  of  God  ;  "  which  at 
once  refers  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  And  then  he  uses 
very  peculiar  characterizations  of  Christ's  Deity.  Why  can 
not  we  in  all  fidelity  preserve  the  strict  speech  ?  He  does  not 
say,  ''  Thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  "  (E.  V.)  ; 
for  that  man-part  of  Christ,  which  was  "  in  the  form  of  God," 
which  could  make  itself  *' of  no  reputation,"  which  could  take 
on  "  a  bondman's  form,"  which  could  ''  originate  in  the  likeness 
of  men,"  and,  '^  formed  in  fashion  as  a  man,"  could  be 
"  humbled  "  and  die  and  be  "  exalted,"  could  not  be  said  to 
be  *'  equal  (tVov)  with  God  ; "  and,  therefore,  Paul  talks 
just  as  here  in  this  fourth  verse.  There  are  certain  "  respects  " 
in  which  he  is  equal,  and  so,  in  our  present  passage,  he  tells 
most  definitely  what  they  are  : — *'(l)  In  power,  (2)  through 
a  Spirit  of  holiness,  (3)  by  a  rising  of  those  dead."  So  that 
most  admirable  is  the  wording  of  the  apostle  (Phil.  2  :  6) 
where  he  refuses  to  say  laov,  and  says  laa,  or,  to  trace  the 
whole  careful  inspiration,  "  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God, 
thought  it  not  robbery  rb  slvai  lea,  that  there  should  be 
equal  respects  with  God,"  that  is,  precisely  as  our  present 
passage  renders  it,  that  a  certain  born  ''  Son  "  of  the  Father 
should  be  so  begotten  that  the  Father  should  be  in  Him,  and 
that  He  should  be  hence  '■^  determined  on  "  to  be  ''  God^s  Son 
(i)  in  power,  (2)  through  a  Spirit  of  holiness,  (3)  by  a  resurrection 
of  those  dead." 


CHAPTER  I.  23 

Before  we  consider  these  ica  or  "equal  things"  respect- 
ively, let  us  see  the  amazing  similarity  of  the  speech  of 
Gabriel.  Angels  are  not  verbose  (Lu.  2  :  14),  and  it  must  be 
seen,  therefore,  in  his  short  speech  what  abounding  weight 
must  be  given  to  ''  Therefore^  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 
thee"  (Lu.  i  :  35),  This  is  his  account  of  that  great  act, 
"  This  day  have  I  begotten  Thee," — and  then,  as  the  result, 
*'  Therefore^  Paul  has  less  rhetoric  than  the  angel.  But  who 
can  refuse  us  the  result' — that  then  and  there  and  ''therefore,'' 
that  is,  specifically,  on  that  sole  account,  "  that  holy  thing  that 
shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God  ? " 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  are  two  questions  imbedded  in  this 
discussion — one,  whether  "  the  Son  "  is  a  name  of  something 
of  recent  date,  or  of  something  born  from  everlasting  ;  and 
the  other,  whether  there  is  such  a  person,  born  from  ever- 
lasting, as  might  have  that  or  any  other  name.  The  former, 
of  course,  is  not  of  so  much  moment. 

It  is  like  the  questions  already  noticed  (v.  i).  What  was 
Jesus  the  name  of  ?  We  saw  it  was  the  name  of  the  God.  Or 
again,  what  was  Christ  the  name  of  ?  We  saw  that  it  was  the 
name  of  the  man.  And  yet,  what  were  they  both  the  name 
of  ?  They  were  the  name  of  the  God-man  ;  in  the  one  case  of 
the  God  impersonate  in  the  man,  and  in  the  other  case  of  the 
man  co-personal  with  the  God  :  in  either  case  giving  no 
slender  ground  for  the  atonement,  and  for  the  name  and  for 
the  claim  of  Deity. 

And  So  in  corresponding  guise  the  "  Son  "  is  the  name  of 
the  man.  As  Christ  had  to  wait  till  a  man  was  actually 
Christos  before  it  could  be  a  name  ;  so  the  "  Son  "  had  to  wait 
till  a  Son  could  absolutely  *'  come  to  he  "  (v.  3),  and  till  the 
King  could  give  the  name, —  "  Thou  art  My  Son  ;  this  day  have 
I  begotten  Thee." 

The  lesser  and  more  trivial  point,  therefore,  is,  what  must 
the  "  Son  "  be  the  name  of  ? 

But  the  other  question  transcends  the  mere  name. 

Christ,  as  the  name  of  the  man,  could  not  affect  the  position 


24  ROMANS. 

that  there  was  an  eternal  "  Son.  "  But  the  "  Son  "  as  the 
name  of  the  man  destroys  it  totally.  Once  satisfy  the  world 
that  the  ''  So/i  "  attained  to  the  name  on  the  plain  of  Bethle- 
hem, and  the  figment  of  the  Hypostasis  would  be  miserably  dis- 
sipated. Where  else  could  we  get  it  ?  Not  from  God  where 
He  says,  '^  I  will  make  him  my  first-born  "  (Ps.  89  :  27);  not 
from  Paul  where  he  says,  "  Determiiied  upon  as  the  Son  of 
God ;  "  not  from  Christ  where  He  says,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me 
hath  seen  the  Father  "  (Jo.  14  :  9);  and  where  He  really  puts 
it  out  of  the  question,  for  He  never  so  much  as  glimmers  about 
a  distinctive  Person,  but  says,  "  I  live  by  the  Father " 
(Jo.  6:57):  whereas  "  before  Abraham  was  I  am  "  (Jo.  8  :  58),  it 
is  because  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one  "(Jo.  10  :  30);  and  then, 
more  articulately,  "  If  he  call  them  gods  to  whom  the  word  of 
God  came,  and  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken,  say  ye  of  Him 
whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world, 
Thou  blasphemest,  because  I  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?  " 
(Jo.  10  :  36). 

Yet  Paul  was  not  Socinus.  For  if  the  "  Son  "  be  God  by 
reason  of  His  union  with  the  Father,  that  is  just  as  much  a 
Deity  as  that  there  be  God  by  reason  of  a  union  with  a  Second 
Person.  In  fact  it  is  more.  And  Paul  is  not  to  be  impeached 
as  failing  of  a  Godhead  for  his  Master,  by  anything  that 
follows  in  the  language  of  the  text. 

Let  us  proceed  to  that. 

'■'In  power.''  Not  '^ powerfully  declared''  (Alford,  Beza, 
Tholuck),  for  the  word  "  declared^"  which  would  fit  such  an 
adverb,  itself  has  to  be  given  up.  'Op/C"  never  means  ''  de- 
clared." Besides,  where  do  we  find  even  the  adverb?  'Ev 
would  naturally  indicate  the  respect  "  in "  which  the  man, 
made  God,  would  be  "  determined  upon  "  as  the  Deity.  What 
more  directly  than"  in  power  ?  "  Christ  had  a  ''power  "  which 
neither  the  God  nor  man,  if  separate,  could  wield  or  possess. 
First  of  all  (i)  2, power  fore7isic.  God  could  not  forgive,  and 
man  could  not  forgive,  in  any  disjunctive  relation  ;  but  man 
laid  on  the  altar,  which  God  could  not  be,  and  God,  blessing 
the  sacrifice,  which  man  could  not  do,  constitute  a  "  Son"  that 


CHAPTER  I.  25 

is  a  God-man,  such  that  the  "  Son  "  is  really  more  potent  than 
the  Father,  the  Father  dwelling  in  the  '*  Son,''  and  the  "  Son  " 
containing  more  than  the  Father,  viz.,  the  Eternal  God  and  a 
guiltless  man,  without  whom  there  could  be  no  remission. 
Again  (2)  there  is  regenerative  power.  Man  could  not  wield  it. 
Man  could  not  even  understand  it.  And  yet  God  could  not 
wield  it  without  the  man.  It  is  the  God-man  that  wins  the 
possibility  of  salvation.  And,  therefore,  God  delights  to  give 
a  determination  to  the  man.  "  All  power  is  given  unto  (Him) 
in  heaven  and  earth  "(Matt.  28  :  18).  And  see  how  He  describes 
it :  *'  As  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself,  so  hath  He  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself  "  (Jo.  5  :  26),  for  ''  the 
time  is  coming  and  now  is  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  Man"  (Jo.  5  :  25);  for  "  as  the  Father 
raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son 
•quickeneth  whom  he  will"  (Jo.  5  :  21).  The  man  could  not 
regenerate,  any  more  than  Moses  could  divide  the  sea  ;  and 
yet  the  man,  even  more  than  Moses,  can  summon  the  sea  to 
open,  and  has  a  will,  even  as  human,  in  the  great  work  of  the 
world's  turning  to  God.  Again  (3)  He  is  sovereign.  Mark 
now  with  great  distinctness  His  three  attributes  of  ^^ power.'' 
**■  Determined  upon  as  the  Son  of  God  in  power,"  and  in 
these  indispensable  particulars,  first,  in  forensie  power, 
which  the  Father  could  not  possess  without  Him  ; 
second,  in  regenerative  \)0\\tr,  which  sprang  directly  from  foren- 
sic work,  and,  thirdly,  in  power  as  a  King,  travelling  the 
length  of  the  statement  that  ''  all  things  were  created  for  Him" 
•(Col.  i:  16)  ;  endorsing  the  title  of  "  head  over  all  things,  to 
the  church  "  (Eph.  i:  22),  and  making  it  signally  the  truth,  and 
that  even  of  the  man  Christ,  that  not  a  syllable  of  recorded 
fact,  not  even  in  the  universe  of  worlds,  could  at  all  have  been 
written  down,  except  as  it  met  the  mind  and  gratified  the  pur- 
pose of  Christ  our  King  and  our  Redeemer. 

So  then  for  the  first  count  in  the  Sonship,  viz., /// "/^zc'^r." 
But  "  determining  upon  "  a  "  Son  "  required  more  than  a  mere  de- 
cree. It  did  not  do  to  say,  (i)  The  man  shall  have  such 
*^po7i>er  "  in  court,  and  (2)  the  man  shall  choose  His  saints,  and 


26  ROMANS. 

(3)  the  man  shall  rule  the  universe.  The  apostle  hurries  up 
with  another  specification.  Christ  had  to  be  prepared.  Incar- 
nation was  not  itself  an  act  in  such  a  sense  as  that  the  God 
had  to  be  transfused  into  the  man.  The  scheme  is  impossible 
by  which  some  men  give  God's  infinity  to  the  Son  of  Mary  ; 
but,  before  the  man  could  be  one  with  the  Father,  the  man 
himself  must  be  prepared.  Incarnation  may  be  by  mere  de- 
cree. For  God  cannot  be  personate  in  man  except  by  an  ordi- 
nance of  heaven,  and  an  eternal  oath  that  links  the  two  na- 
tures into  one.  But  man  has  to  be  lifted  toward  God.  I  need 
not  tarry  upon  the  secular  gifts.  Neither  Gabriel  nor  Paul  sees 
fit  to  notice  them.  Their  enthusiasm  is  all  for  character. 
Christ  with  them  is  a  lost  man,  I  mean  by  heritage  (Zech.  3  : 
219:9).  He  isa child  of  Adam  (i:  3  ;  Lu.  3:  38).  Hebearsupon 
His  face  the  marks  of  "  infirmity"  (Heb.  5 :  2).  He  is  "  tempted  " 
(Heb.  4:  15),  and,  beyond  all  doubt,  tempted  to  sin  (Matt.  4: 
I,  etc.).  The  torture  that  this  begets  becomes  our  ransom 
(Heb.  5:7);  the  victory,  our  retreat  ;  and  Gabriel  and  Paul, 
therefore,  put  at  the  very  front  that  marvel  by  which  the  man, 
curst  by  descent,  is  gotten  ready  for,  as  God,  by  a  moral  rescue 
from  His  state  by  nature.  Look  at  both  their  speeches.  Paul's 
is  the  least  special,  "  Through  a  Spirit  of  holiness  ";  but 
Gabriel  sounds  it  forth  as  plainly  as  it  could  be  uttered,  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ;  therefore  also  that  thing,  be- 
gotten holy,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God  "  (Lu.  i:  35). 

Righteousness,  contrary  to  the  nature  of  Mary,  is  necessary 
to  the  person  of  Christ  ;  and,  therefore,  His  struggle  to  main- 
tain it  is  His  great  battle,  and  His  being  ''  determined  upon  "  as 
"  Son  "  is  in  reward,  so  the  Bible  often  tells  us,  of  "  the  travail 
of  His  soul  "  (Is.  53:  11),  and  His  "  obedience  unto  death  " 
(Phil.  2:  8),  and  His  overcoming  to  the  very  end  (Rev.  3:  21). 
"Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  Him  and  given  Him 
a  name  which  is  above  every  name  "  (Phil.  2:  9).  "  It  became 
Him  to  make  the  captain  of  (our)  salvation  perfect  thro'  suf- 
fering "  (Heb.  2:  10).  He  "overcame  and  is  set  down  with 
(His)    Father  in  His   throne"    (Rev.  3:  21).     This   does    not 


CHAPTER  I.  27 

derogate  from  the  incarnation,  any  more  than  our  struggle  to 
be  saved  derogates  from  our  saintship  which  was  decreed  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world. 

But,  now,  there  is  a  third  count.  Not  only  was  Christ  de- 
termined upon  first  *'  in  power  "  and,  second,  "  through  "  that 
which  made  possible  "  the  power  ^'  viz..  His  Christ-ship  or  anoint- 
ment by  the  Spirit;  but  third,  k  or  "^/// of  "  the  results  of  all 
this,  viz.,  the  object  of  His  Messiahship  in  "  a  rising  of  those 
dead." 

And  here  Paul  sheds  light  upon  that  word  as  used  often  in 
Holy  Scripture.  When  Peter  says,  "  by  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ"  (i  Pet.  3:  21),  he  means  much  more  than  His 
bodily  rising.  We  would  make  the  body  a  horrible  idol  if  we 
treated  it  with  all  the  sentences  on  the  rising  of  the  dead. 

Therefore  Paul,  when  he  goes  on  to  his  third  clause, "  Who 
was  determined  upon  as  God's  Son  ( i )  in  power  (2)  through  a  Spirit 
of  holiness  (3)  by  a  rising  of  those  dead''  is  infinitely  far  from 
merely  treatmg  of  the  "  resurrection''  (E.  V.). 

Christ,  as  Mary's  son,  would  have  been  born  dead  (Eph.  2  :  3). 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  He  would  not  have  inher- 
ited from  His  mother.  The  angel  signalizes  the  grace  in  "  that 
thing  begotten  holy  "  (Lu.  i  :  35),  and  Paul  connects  the  action 
of  the  Spirit  with  the  rising  of  the  dead. 

Now  this  agrees  WMth  the  whole  testimony  of  Scripture. 
Christ  is  said  to  be  **  a  dead  man  according  to  the  flesh 
(i  Pet.  3  :  18).  We  are  **  quickened  together  with  Christ  "  (Eph. 
2:5).  He  is  spoken  of  as  "  redeemed  "  (Heb.  9:12);  and,  in 
explanation  of  it,  as  "offering for  Himself  and  for  the  errors  of 
the  people  "  (Heb.  9  :  7  ;  5  : 3).  He  is  said  to  be  "  the  first  be- 
gotten from  the  dead  "  (Rev.  1:5);  to  be  "  separated  from  sin- 
ners "  (Heb.  7  :  26),  and  ''to  (be  saved)  from  death"  (Heb. 
5  :  7).  We  are  told  that  He  was  ''tempted  "  (Heb.  4:15);  that 
He  "resisted  unto  blood  "(Heb.  12  14),  that  He  was  "compassed 
with  infirmity  "  (Heb.  5  :  2).  We  are  informed  in  direct  assev- 
erance  that  He  was"  quickened  by  the  Spirit  "  (i  Pet.  3:18). 
And  we  can  put  together  but  one  consistent  proposition,  viz., 
that  He  was  from  Adam.      Our  Saviour  was   not  a  creature 


28  ROMANS. 

foisted  in  upon  our  family,  but  was  a  descendant  of  our  race 
(Heb.  2  :  i6),  and  therefore  had  to  be  generated  ''holy  "  (Lu. 
I  :  35),  or,  as  the  Bible  calls  it, ''  raised  from  among  the  dead  " 
(Rom.  6:4);  and  this  agrees  with  all  the  wonders  of  the  narra- 
tive. He  must  be  "  tempted  "  and  "  infirm  "  and  have  a  horrible 
fight  with  wickedness.  This  tempting  must  be  His  torture,  and 
He  must  come  out  of  it  unscathed.  If  He  sin,  we  are  ruined. 
That  fight  in  the  Wilderness,  and  the  blood  of  the  Garden,  and 
the  shriek  of  His  last  despair,  must  all  be  passed,  and  He  must 
be  ''  holy,  harmless,  undefiled  "  and  entirely  incorrupt.  And, 
to  make  Him  all  this,  He  was  born  miraculously  of  a  woman 
by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  we  are  regenerate  by 
the  Spirit,  He  was  generate  in  the  very  womb.  He  was  born 
having  infirmity,  and  God  gave  Him  no  such  supply  of  Him- 
self as  made  it  an  easy  victory.  At  times  He  was  almost 
abandoned  (Matt.  26  :  41  ;  27  :  46  ;  Heb.  5  :  7).  And  this 
whole  thing,  including  His  body,  is  His  "  resurrection  from 
among  the  dead"  (Heb.  6:2;  Phil.  3  :  11  ;  i  Pet.  1:3; 
3  :  21). 

Now  when  Paul  says,  ''  Through  a  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  a  ris- 
ing of  those  dead,''  he  is  answering  the  question  of  the  ''  there- 
fore'' oi  the  angel  Gabriel.  "Determined  upon  as  God's 
Son  in  power,  through  a  Spirit  of  holiness  ;  "  and  marked  as 
having  such  power  not  simply  by  His  own  rising  from  spiritual 
death,  but,  more  signally,  by  the  raising  of  others  :  — "  The 
Son  of  God  in  poiver,  through  a  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  rising 
€f  those  dead." 

5.  By  whom  we  received  grace  and  apostleship  for  His 
name,  in  order  to  an  obedience  of  faith  in  all  the  nations ; 
6.  Among  whom  are  ye,  also,  called  ones  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"By"  (E.  v.),  causal  as  well  as  instrumental.  He  being 
God  as  well  as  man,  the  "grace"  was  "by"  Him  as  well 
as  through  Him.  ''  Through  whom  "  (Re.),  therefore,  would 
be  too  narrow  a  sense. 

"We."  Not '' 7<:/^,"  all  the  apostles,  nor  "7£/^,"  all  gracious 
persons,  for  Paul  is  speaking  of  a  special  embassage  to  Gen- 
tiles.    But  "  we;'  Paul,  a  change  from  singular  to  plural  which 


CHAPTER  1.  29 

may  be  seen  in  any  language.  "Received."  Both  "grace" 
and  " apostleship  "  with  Paul  were  ''  received''  ab  ictii,  and, 
therefore,  explain  the  aorist  on  this  occasion. 

"For  His  name  "  (E.  V.).  "For  the  sake  of  His  name" 
(see  Revision)  is  too  general.  'T-fp  in  its  primary  sense, 
means  oi^er.  In  its  first  metaphorical  sense  it  means  over  in 
the  sense  of  defence  or  shelter ;  then,  ///  behalf  of.  That  is  its 
meaning  here.  Paul's  apostleship  was  ''for''  Christ,  and,  to 
express  it  more  dehnitely  still,  for  his  **  name  "  or  honor  in  the 
world  ;  a  most  thorough  counterpart  to  which  characterization 
is  that  earliest  account  by  his  Master,  "  A  chosen  vessel  unto 
Me,  to  bear  My  name  before  the  Gentiles,  and  kings,  and  the 
children  of  Israel  "  (Acts  9  :  15). 

"  In  order  to  an  obedience  of  faith,"  Paul  is  noted  for 
his  single  sentences.  Ot  all  the  teachers  of  divinity  he  con- 
centres the  most.  Of  the  gospel  he  just  gives  but  one  sub- 
ject,— ''concerning  His  Son!"  {y.  3).  Of  salvation  he  has 
sought  him  out  one  careful  expression.  We  "  are  justified  by 
faith."  In  that  dreadful  chapter  where  election  is  to  be  vin- 
dicated (Rom.  9),  he  has  but  one  reply,  and  when  we  come  to 
examine  it,  it  is  the  most  perfect  possible.  And  now  in  three 
vocables  he  is  to  tell  the  object  of  his  apostleship.  We 
must  be  very  careful  with  such  dense  speech.  It  is  not 
"for  an  obedience  to  the  faith  "  (E.  V.,  Alford).  The  margin 
of  King  James  implies  that  this  is  doubtful  interpolation. 
It  is  not  "  obedience  as  the  result  of  faith  "  (Barnes, 
Stuart),  for  that  could  only  be  admitted  through  the  de- 
fault of  the  more  simple  rendering.  But,  like  a  crown  of 
thorns,  or  a  grove  of  trees,  it  is  an  obedience  which  consists 
of  faith.  Paul  talks  this  way  in  other  passages.  He  speaks 
of  a  "  holiness  of  truth  "  (Eph.  4  :  24,  E.  V.,  marg.),  which  evi- 
dently means  a  holmess  which  is  ''truth  in  the  inward  parts." 
"  A  breastplate  of  faith  "  ( i  Thess.  5  :  8),  or  "  a  shield  of  faith  " 
(Eph.  6:  15),  or  "a  hearing  of  faith  "  (Cial.  3  :  2,5),  or  "  a  right- 
eousness of  faith"  (4  :  13),  all  mean  a  breastplate  or  a  shield 
or  a  hearing  or  a  righteousness  which  consists  in  faith  ;  and 
this  agrees  with  all  the  teaching  of  the  apostle.     There  is  a 


so  ROMANS. 

superstition  of  modern  times  which  a  false  view  of  Paul  vastly 
confirms,  which  makes  faith,  like  sacrifice,  like  absolution  by 
the  priest,  like  the  circumcision  of  the  ancient  ritual  service, 
like  the  sacraments  of  our  own  time,  a  means  of  supplanting 
the  "  obedience  "  of  the  pious.  Paul  was  loud  in  rebuke  of  this. 
He  calls  it  "  another  gospel."  Taking  the  form  of  it  in  his 
day,  viz.,  circumcision,  he  traces  it  to  an  aversion  to  this  very 
thing  ^'obedience''  "For  neither  they  that  are  circumcised 
keep  the  law  "  (Gal.  6  :  13),  but  desire  to  have  you  circum- 
cised "  only  lest  they  should  suffer  persecution  by  the  cross  of 
Christ  "  (Gal.  6:12).  We  do  not  sufficiently  probe  this  pas- 
sage (Gal.  6).  It  is  not  "  for  the  cross  "  (E.  V.),  but  "  by  the 
cross."  The  cross  is  the  persecuting  agency  by  whose  smart 
and  sacrifice  we  are  scared  away,  and  Paul  adopts  it  in  this 
sense  ;  —  "  Circumcision  availeth  nothing,  nor  uncircumcision, 
but  a  new  creature  "  (Gal.  6  :  15),  and  he  says  (not  glorying 
in  the  cross  as  we  would  speak  of  glorying  in  the  gospel,  but 
glorying  in  the  cross  as  a  cross^  that  is  as  demanding  pamful 
and  self-denied  "  obedience  "),  "  God  forbid  that  I  should  glory 
save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  the  world 
is  crucified  unto  me  and  I  unto  the  world  "  (Gal.  6  :  14).  So 
then  "  obedience  "  is  that  obedience  of  a  changed  nature  which 
consists  in  ^^ faith;''  and  as  we  shall  have  much  to  do  with 
that,  we  may  as  well  at  once  be  entirely  specific. 

We  have  seen  the  tendency  of  Paul,  nay  of  all  the  men  who 
have  been  inspired,  to  wrap  up  a  whole  account  of  things  in  a 
single  expression.  A  whole  account  of  things  in  gospel  changes 
would  be  thus  :  First,  born  in  sin.  Second,  sin  incurable. 
Third,  angels,  having  no  Redeemer,  perpetual  sinners.  Fourth, 
men,  blessed  with  a  Redeemer,  capable  of  salvation.  Fifth, 
idiots  and  infants,  dying  in  that  condition,  saved  without  faith. 
Sixth,  others,  never.  Seventh,  salvation,  being  moral,  God 
pleased  that  that  moral  salvation  shall  begin  in  this  world. 
Eighth,  that  moral  salvation  everywhere  pressed,  and  called 
repentance,  conversion,  regeneration,  justification,  quickening, 
wakening  and  all  the  thousand  names  in  which  the  work  is 
shown  in  us  or  by  us.      But  ninth,  inasmuch  as  it   is  not  caus- 


CHAPTER  I.  31 

ally  by  us,  1  mean  in  the  higher  sense  of  cause,  forasmuch 
as  a  change  of  heart  is  like  the  creation  of  a  heart  in  the 
beginning,  God  pleased  only  to  create  when  we  seek  the  work 
of  Him  ;  and,  tenthlv,  when  we  do  honor  to  the  work  by  seek- 
ing in  the  name  of  the  Redeemer.  This  last  may  be  very 
imperfect  ;  for  Abraham  and  the  awakened  Peter  must  have 
known  little  of  Christ  ;  but  all  the  more  therefore  have  we 
need  of  ^^obcdiencer  Blessed  is  he  who  has  the  more  ^^obe- 
dience;' even  if  he  has  the  less  doctrinal  training.  For,  like 
Cornelius,  I  may  have  never  heard  of  Jesus  ;  yet  if  I  believe 
in  God,  and  without  understanding  of  His  methods,  believe  m 
Him  as  Himself  a  rescuer  in  my  wickedness,  who  shall  say  1 
may  not  be  pardoned  ?  It  is  not  of  works,  for  who  ever  by 
mere  teaching  worked  his  way  into  the  kingdom  ?  It  is  not  of 
grace  in  such  a  way  as  to  answer  for  me  without  the  cross  of 
the  Redeemer.  It  is  not  of  nature  in  such  a  way  that  I  can 
rise  to  it  by  human  powers.  But  it  is  of  seeking,  and  that 
not  of  myself,  but  as  of  the  oak  or  the  vine,  by  a  power  lead- 
ing me  to  grope  for  maintenance  in  the  soil  provided. 

This  is  a  long  story,  and,  as  1  say,  the  apostle  makes  it 
short.  He  tells  all  this  by  the  word  '^  faith r  And  we  must 
pack  the  word  as  we  would  a  trunk.  There  is  a  common  faith, 
under  which  a  million  of  times  a  sinner  starts  to  ask  and  does 
not  persevere.  There  is  a  saving  faith,  which  simply  tells  the 
story  when  he  does  persevere,  that  is  when  this  great  act  of 
^'bbediencer  which  consists  in  asking,  seeking,  does  really 
becrin  to  seek,  namely,  out  of  the  true  motive,  penitence,  and 
out^  of  the  true  drawing,  viz.,  by  the  loveliness  of  Christ,  which 
then  for  the  first  time  begins  to  dawn  upon  the  mind.  The 
faith,  hence,  that  saves  the  soul  is  not  that  which  resorts  to 
Christ  out  of  a  selfish  terror  (though  the  Bible  tries  to  wake 
up  even  such  a  faith,  Jude  23,  and  that,  persevered  in,  may 
lead  to  the  other),  but  it  is  the  faith  which  the  soul  attains 
when  the  lower  sor^  of  faith  is  striven  in,  so  that  it  begins  to 
work  its  effect  on  God  ;  when,  therefore,  a  moral  light  enters 
the  soul  ;  when,  therefore,  a  whole  group  of  other  graces  begin  ; 
when  seeking,  which  is  but  another   name   for  faith,  goes  on 


32  ROMANS. 

from  moral  motives  ;  and  when  we  are  able  to  arrive  at  this 
conclusion,  that,  whereas  seeking  became  the  great  thing  com- 
manded for  the  sinner,  seeking  or  '^  faith  "  became  the  great 
"  obedience  y  "  so  that  "  obedience  "  is  of  the  very  nature  of 
^^ faith "  before  it  can  be  imagined  at  all  to  save.  To  put 
it  plainly,  faith  must  become  moral  before  it  can  be  con- 
sidered a  saving  grace. 

Now  one  caution  before  we  leave  the  subject.  Common 
faith  is  a  grace  ;  that  is,  in  a  lower  sense,  it  is  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  And  in  this  commoner  meaning  it  is  a  saving 
grace.  For  unless  a  man  is  stirred  up  by  selfish  terror  to  seek, 
he  is  not,  as  a  usual  thing,  ever  delivered.  Ten  thousand  men 
who  have  had  this  faith  have  perished.  Saving  faith  is  that 
which  saves.  And  though  this  other  faith  saves  in  a  certain 
previous  and  prefatory  sense,  yet  the  man  is  not  saved  when  he 
has  it.  All  men  have  had  it  who  were  well  raised.  The  faith  that 
saves  is  that  actual  vision  (2  Thess.  2:  10),  which  shares  with 
love  and  patience  the  moral  light  of  the  regenerated  man. 

"In  all  the  nations."  We  call  unchristian  nations  heathen, 
which  is  the  Greek  word  for  "  natio7is  "  simply  Anglicized. 
The  Jews,  looking  upon  this  same  word  in  the  Greek,  though 
it  is  the  commonest  word  for  ^'  nations,''  rarely  understood  it 
that  way,  but  understood  it  of  their  sort  of  heathen,  viz.,  of 
men  not  Jews.  The  Latins  managed  the  thing  better.  They 
took  their  word '' /z^/Z^/^j-,"  viz.,  ^(f;z/^j-,  and  altered  it  a  little, 
and  called  men  not  Romans  Gentiles,  and  then  the  Romans,when 
they  became  Jews  or  Christians,  took  this  word  for  those  not  so. 
And  finally  into  our  English,  through  Jerome  and  other  transla- 
tors, there  came  the  word  Gentiles,  and  the  Greek  word  for 
"  nations  "  is  translated  "  Gentiles  "  all  through  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Nevertheless  sometimes  it  is  translated  "  nations.''  This, 
impulsively,  we  might  imagine  a  mistake.  It  is  translated 
"  6^<?;z///^i'"  just  below  (v.  13).  But  while  the  vast  majority 
of  sentences  require  the  translation  "  Gentiles,"  the  present 
text,  for  example,  is  justly  different.  Let  us  examine  other 
instances.     "Go  teach  all  Gentiles"  (Matt.  28:  19)  would  not 


CHAPTER  I.  II 

do  for  a  moment.  "  Before  Him  shall  be  gathered  all  Gen- 
tiles "  (Matt.  25:  32)  would  be  equally  unhappy.  While,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  talk  of  "Jews  and  nations"  (Gal.  2:  15), 
or  of  going  to  the  nations  (Acts  18:  6),  or  "being  in  time 
past  nations  "  (Eph.  2:  11),  would  show  with  what  exceeding 
fitness  the  same  word  has  been  translated  differently,  so  long 
as  we  had  the  means  of  doing  it.  "  Among  all  the  nations,'' 
therefore,  is  truer  to  the  apostle's  appointed  mission  than 
"  aniont;^  all  the  Gentiles.'' 

"Called  ones  of  Jesus  Christ"  gives  no  inconvenient  am- 
biguity. The  geniiive  of  possession  and  the  genitive  of  effi- 
ciency are  equally  in  place.  Where  both  are  true,  the  Holy 
Ghost  would  have  little  care  to  be  particular  about  either.  It 
is  to  these  "  called  ones  "  that  Paul  now  addresses  his  epistle. 

7.  To  all  the  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be  holy,  who  are 
in  Rome.  Grace  to  you  and  peace  from  God  our  Father, 
and  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

*'  To  all  the  beloved  of  God."  ''  To  all  who  are  in  Rome  " 
(E.  V.)  is  one  of  those  slight  errors  of  translation  which  we 
have  already  noticed  in  the  inscription  to  this  epistle.  It  is 
not  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  The  Epistle  to  Romans, 
that  is,  to  certain  men  of  that  particular  city.  And  now  he  tells 
to  what  men.  "  To  all  the  beloi'ed  of  God,  called  to  be  holy,  who 
are  in  Rome." 

"  To  be  holy."  We  have  already  seen  how  the  Greek  for 
"  nations  "  may  have  a  distinct  translation  where  the  Latin  or 
the  English  may  furnish  it.  And  so  we  have  Christ  for  An- 
ointed, arid  deacon  for  servant,  and  Ghost  for  Spirit,  sometimes 
wisely,  and  sometimes,  as  in  the  last  instance,  without  any  very 
good  effect.  "  Saints  "  (E.V.)  in  the  present  clause  is  but  an 
adjective,  the  Greek  for  ''holy."  It  is  the  plural  a; w/.  and 
once  in  the  Bible  is  translated  "  holy  ones  "  (LXX.  Dan  4:  17). 
We  are  convinced  that  saints  is  an  improvement,  like  Gentiles 
for  nations,  or  Christ  for  Anointed  ;  that  is,  when  a  word  hard- 
ens into  what  is  technical  (as  iiaKovoq  becoming  deacon),  it  is 
better,  when  it  comes  into  a  fresh  language,  to  give  it  a  voca- 
ble by  itself  ;  just  as  it  is  better  to  speak  of  "  a  collection  for 


34  ROMANS. 

the  saints,"  than  a  "  collection  for  the  holy  ones  "  (i  Cor.  i6:  i), 
or  to  speak  of  'Hhe  saints  and  widows"  (Acts  9:41),  or 
of  washing  "  the  saints'  feet"  (i  Tim.  5:  10),  rather  than  to 
insist  upon  the  translated  adjective.  Yet  when  it  appears 
merely  as  an  adjective,  without  the  awkwardness  of  "  the  holy  " 
ox  ^' the  holy  ones,''  it  seems  better  to  preserve  the  simplest 
idea. 

"  Who  are  in  Rome."  We  fix  a  period  here,  not  a  colon. 
The  sentence  terminates.  Paul  finishes  here  the  address  of 
his  epistle. 

**  G-race  to  you  and  peace  from  G-od  our  Father  and  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  This  is  a  new  paragraph.  It  is  not  of  much 
importance,  but  even  the  Revisionists  mistake  the  fashion  of 
the  East.  John  reveals  it  more  perfectly  (3  John  i).  He 
gives  the  address  without  any  salutation  at  all.  And  in 
his  second  epistle,  by  a  better  reading  of  the  Revisionists,  he 
gives  it  thus,  ^'  Grace,  mercy,  peace  shall  be  with  us."  Neither 
grammar,  therefore,  nor  the  custom  of  the  people,  forbids  the 
punctuation  as  we  have  given  it.  Paul  to  certain  Rof?ians  j 
so  far  the  address  ;  and  then  "  Grace  to  you  and  peace  "  as  a 
self-contained  and  independent  form  of  greeting. 

"  Grace,''  a  usual  word  for  mercy  to  sinners,  though  in  a  wider 
sense  it  has  been  vital  to  Gabriel  as  much  as  to  the  redeemed. 
"  Peace,"  the  salaam  of  the  East  ;  in  those  stormy  times,  a 
most  expressive  salutation.  No  wonder  it  has  been  borrowed 
into  religion.  '^Father ;"  so  obvious  a  title  for  God  that 
Paul  says  that  from  Him  *'  every  fatherhood  in  heaven  and 
on  earth  is  named  "  (Eph.  3:  15). 

This  is  the  salutation,  therefore.  That  before  is  the  address. 
Then  proceeds  the  epistle  : — 

8.  On  the  one  hand,  first ;  I  thank  my  God,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  for  you  all,  that  your  faith  is  published 
throughout  the  whole  world. 

"  On  the  one  hand,  first."  The  Bible  becomes  a  different 
Bible  if  we  reject  every  attempt  to  find  mistakes  in  it.  Paul 
has  been  wonderfully  mutilated.  Commentators,  pressed  into 
some  strait,  have  not  hesitated  to  say:  This  comes  from  Paul's 


CHAPTER  I.  35 

employing  an  amanuensis  (see  also  Tholuck,Meyer^om.  5:12), 
or,  Such  and  such  a  protasis  with  no  apodosis  (Olshausen), 
or,  as  in  the  present  instance,  such  and  such  a  ^hf 
{^^  on  the  one  hand'')  without  any  (5t  {^^  on  the  other  hand'')^ 
sprang  from  Paul's  heat  and  the  thronging  of  his  inspired 
teachings.  Some  of  his  noblest  thoughts  have  been  missed, 
and  then  buried  by  this  dangerous  treatment.  How  much 
better  to  imagine  that  the  Holy  Ghost  meant  entirely  what 
he  wrote.  "  On  the  one  hand,  first''  and  most  important  of  all, 
Paul  saw  immense  advantages  to  others  in  the  faith  of  the  Ro- 
mans, and  ''071  the  other  hand"  (Ji),  see  verse  13th,  '^ I  do  not 
wish  you  to  be  ignorant,  brethren,"  that  I  tried  hard  to  get  to 
you  "  that  I  might  have  some  fruit  also  in  yourselves."  The  ex- 
tra «a'  in  this  passage  (v.  13)  is  the  tell  tale  particle  that  is 
quite  de  trap  except  for  this  view. 

"  I  thank  my  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  for  you  all." 
"  My  God  through  Jesus  Christ "  is  the  reading  of  some 
commentators  (Glockler,  Koppe),  that  is.  He  who  is  "  my  God 
through  Jesus  Christ."  But  Rom.  7:  25,  where  we  read,  "I 
thank  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  and  Col.  3:  17, 
^'  Giving  thanks  to  God  and  the  Father  by  Him,"  and  plenty 
of  other  passages,  fix  another  meaning.  Christ  stands  in  a 
peculiar  relation  to  His  people  ;  and  as  their  worship  is  sin, 
not  perfect.  He  offers  it  as  from  Himself,  with  hope  and  promise 
of  its  becoming  perfect  through  His  blessed  intervention. 

''  For  you  all."  The  English  ''for  "  answers  capitally  to  the 
original  i-^fp  ;  "for"  in  every  reasonable  sense.  "For"  in 
behalf  of ,  as  though  "you  "  thanked  him,  and  "for"  directly, 
as  though  "you  "  were  the  subjects  of  the  thanksgiving. 

"  That  your  faith  is  published."  We  object  to  the  expres- 
sion "spoken  of"  (E.  V.).  This  particular  Greek  occurs  sev- 
enteen times  in  scripture,  and  everywhere  means  preached. 
''Christ  \s  preached  "  says  this  same  apostle  (Phil,  i:  18);  and 
his  death  (i  Cor.  11:  26),  and  resurrection  (Acts  4:  2),  are 
preached,  using  this  same  word.  It  sheds  light  on  the  ntv 
("  on  the  one  hand  ")  of  which  we  have  just  been  speaking.  "  On 
the  one  hand"  he   exalts  the  "published"  benefits  of   their  ac- 


36  ROMANS. 

tive  ^^faith'^And,  as  Rome  was  the  centre  of  the  universe,  he 
informs  them,  before  he  comes  to  speak  "  o?i  the  other  hand  " 
of  their  own  interests,  how  incessantly  he  prayed  for  them, 
evidently  with  the  apostolic  consciousness  of  how  much  was  to 
be  gained  by  the  ^^ published'^  example  of  the  metropolitan  fol- 
lowers of  Christ.  This  agrees  better  with  the  facts.  They 
were  not  ^^  spoken  of  in  the  way  of  wide  approval  ;  for  when 
Paul  actually  did  come  to  Rome,  he  was  greeted  with  the 
statement,  "  As  concerning  this  sect,  we  know  that  everywhere 
it  is  spoken  against  "  (Acts  28:  22). 

9.  For  God  is  my  "Witness  whom  I  serve  in  my  spirit  in 
the  gospel  of  his  Son,  how  unceasingly  I  make  mention  of 

you, 

10.  Always  in  my  prayers  making  request,  if  by  any 
means,  now,  at  any  time,  I  may,  in  the  will  of  God,  be 
prospered  to  come  unto  you. 

"For;"  that  is,  in  proof  of  this,  viz.,  that  I  am  keenly 
alive  to  the  importance  of  faith  at  Rome.  That  he  should 
pray  every  day  for  unknown  Romans  would  seem  an  affectation, 
considering  the  number  of  heathen  cities.  Hence  the  oath, — 
God  knows  I  do  it.  And  this  confirms  the  idea  of  the  impor- 
tance with  the  apostle  of  Christian  examples  in  the  imperial 
stronghold.  "God  is  my  witness."  Christ's  commands  are 
to  be  understood  in  their  substance.  He  gives  a  philosophic 
reason  for  very  many  of  them,  and  for  none  a  more  beautiful 
one  than  the  command,  "  Swear  not  at  all  "  (Matt.  5:  34).  A 
Christian  is  to  be  so  God-like  as  not  to  suspect  himself  of 
faithlessness,  therefore  why  the  oath  ?  And  this  is  the  "  tempt- 
ation "  that  we  might  fear  to  fall  into  (Jas.  5:  12),  a  doubt  of 
our  truthfulness.  And  yet  God  swore  (Heb.  6:  17),  and  Paul 
swore,  and  that  in  other  places  (Gal.  i :  20).  There  is  to  be  reason 
in  our  obedience.  The  grand  principle  remains.  We  are  not  to 
swear,  because  we  are  not  to  make  light  of  our  own  veracity. 
"  Let  your  word  be  yea,  yea,  nay,  nay  ;  for  whatsoever  is  more 
than  these  is  of  the  Evil  One." 

"  Whom  I  serve."  The  word  usually  translated  "  worship  " 
(npoGKweo)),  is   not  this   word,  but  means  to  hiss  towards,  that 


CHAPTER  I.  37 

is  to  kiss  the  ha?id  to,  and  is  often  imagined  to  mean  such 
technical  worship  as  belongs  only  to  Deity.  We  have  a  fault  of 
exaggerating  such  words  ;  as,  for  example,  the  word  ordain. 
We  imagine  that  it  means  a  ghostly  consecration  which  estab- 
lishes a  minister.  Now  there  is  such  a  consecration  ;  more, 
however,  in  the  vote  of  the  church  than  in  the  laying  on  of 
hands.  And  there  is  a  worship  that  belongs  only  to  the 
Almighty.  It  is  well  to  remember  that  a  man  ought  to  be  for- 
mally ordained,  and  that  God  should  be  exclusively  worshiped. 
But  it  is  exceedingly  wise  to  state  that  there  is  a  word  for 
neither  except  now  in  our  English.  The  word  ordained 3iS  official 
in  its  meaning  translates  seven  different  words  in  Scripture 
(Mark  3:  14;  Acts,  i:  22  ;  14:  23  ;  17:31  ;i  Tim.  2  :;  ;  Titus,  i: 
5  ;  Heb.  5:  i  ;  8:  3);  and  never  the  same  word  except  in  a  single 
instance.  Kissing  the  hand  may  be  to  different  persons  beside 
the  Almighty  (Acts  10:  25).  Our  sole  caution  is  in  respect  to 
the  words.  There  is  a  certain  sort  of  worship  (though  after 
all  we  mean  a  certain  sort  of  admiration  and  of  means  to  ex- 
press it),  which  belongs  properly  to  Deity,  and  is  but  the  bald 
recognition  of  what  is  unparalleled  and  supreme  in  the  Most 
High. 

"In  my  spirit."  Here  is  quite  a  different  word.  It  did 
acquire  a  special  meaning  in  the  Greek.  It  is  like  the  word 
''flesh:'  Flesh  means  any  of  a  dozen  things.  But  it  grew 
into  the  technical  significance  of  all  of  a  man  outside  of  the 
"  neiu  man,''  or  of  the  regenerating  Spirit.  Refinements  of  the 
taste,  which  were  of  the  very  best,  were  ''flesh  "  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul,  if  they  were  not  of  the  new  nature.  It  is  not 
certain  that  TTvzvfia  was  ever  used  for  mind  (Jo.  3:  8),  that  is, 
in  the  New  Testament.  And  it  is  rarely  used  for  the  soul  as 
distinct  from  the  body,  or  for  angels  either  good  or  wicked. 
But  it  is  usually  meant  for  conscience  or  our  moral  part,  and 
often  for  that  new  conscience  which  marks  the  special  meaning 
of  conversion. 

When,  therefore,  Paul  speaks  of  serving  in  the  spirit,  he  car- 
ries us  back  to  the  Gospels  (Jo.  4:  23).  Our  Saviour  puts  all 
this  into  shape.     He  tells  us,  "  The  true  worshiper  must  wor- 


SS  ROMANS. 

ship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  Spirit  is  God."  Such 
is  the  order  of  the  Greek.  Middleton,  with  his  predicate  rule, 
himself  acknowledges  the  pertinent  exceptions  (Chap.  3:  Sec. 
4).  "  Spirit  is  God."  That  is,  spirit  is  the  God  part  of  man. 
We  are  told  distinctly  so  in  Paul  (i  Cor.  14:  25).  "  Will  report 
that  God  is  in  you  of  a  truth."  He  says  (Gal.  2:  20),  "  It  is 
not  I  that  live,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  me."  Our  Saviour  is 
not  rash,  therefore.  He  is  in  analogy  with  scripture.  "  Spirit 
is  God,"  and  they  that  worship  Him  must  worship  Him  in 
the  God  part,  that  is  ''in  spirit  and  in  truth."  Paul  serves  in  the 
spirit,  therefore,  when  he  serves,  not  in  his  unsanctified  nature, 
but  in  that  moral  part  which  has  become  occupied  with  the 
life  of  God. 

"  In  the  gospel  of  His  Son."  What  this  means  the  apostle 
has  just  been  stating  (vs.  i,  3). 

"  How  unceasingly  I  make  mention  of  you."  Perhaps  it 
is  more  accurate  to  say,  "  make  memory  of  you,''  or  ^^caiise  you 
to  be  remembered''  (see  the  Greek),  and  this  agrees  with  the 
favorite  punctuation.  The  English  Version  is  probably  wrong 
in  running  the  two  clauses  together,  and  making  them  read, 
"  /  make  mentio?i  of  you  always  in  jny  prayers."  There  are  two 
adverbs  "  unceasingly  "  and  "  always  j  "  and  there  are  two  verbs, 
''make  mention," 2CCi^  ''making  request."  This  is  the  outfit  for 
separate  clauses.  And  it  is  probable  that  the  pointing  of  the 
Receptus  is  correct.  "  How  unceasingly  I  reme7?iber  you"  diXidi 
then  in  that  noblest  manner,  of  *' making  request "  for  you 
"  always  in  my  prayers." 

"  If  by  any  means,  now,  at  any  time."  This  is  the  word- 
ing of  a  very  busy  man,  who  could  not  long  beforehand  predict 
when  he  could  do  anything  ;  moreover  who  recognized  dis- 
tinctly the  leading,  and,  in  that  miraculous  age,  the  very  orders 
of  Heaven  (see  Acts  8:29  ;  16:  7  ;  21:  4).  This  makes  "in 
the  will  of  God  "  more  expressive.  God  had  a  map  for  all 
things  which  was  the/r^y>"/  of  His  "will."  Paul  was  praying 
that  he  might  "be  prospered,"  vloX.  "  have  a  prosperous 
journey  "  (E.  V.);  the  word  means  more  generally  "prospered" 
(i  Cor.  16;  2  ;  3  Jo.   2),  or    having  one's  way   opened^   and  it 


CHAPTER.  I.  39 

was  not  so  much  having  his  journey  prosperous  after  he  had 
set  out,  as  getting  prosperously  started,  that  Paul  was 
praying  for,  and,  in  order  to  that,  that  his  plan,  as  the  only 
possibility  of  its  being  accomplished,  might  be  '■'■in  "  (not  "  by'' 
E.  V.)  the/;vyV'/or  '' will  of  Godr 

1 1 .  For  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  unto  you 
some  spiritual  gift  to  the  end  ye  may  be  set  firm. 

*'  Set  firm."  This  is  a  very  important  word.  Let  us  study 
it  thoroughly.  It  comes  from  the  root  ara,  and  is  reflected 
in  such  words  as  stake  and  stand.  Indeed  it  means  to  set  fast 
primarily  ;  as  when  we  read,  ''  He  set  the  stone  fast  in  the 
ground"  (Hes.  Th.  498).  The  Bible  does  undoubtedly  teach 
that  a  man  must  be  ''  set  firm''  before  there  can  be  any  cer- 
tainty that  he  will  persevere.  Election  has  nothing  to  do  with 
it.  There  is  an  election  unto  life,  as  this  same  Paul  instructs 
us  ;  "  for  whom  He  did  foreknow  He  also  did  predestinate  " 
(8  :  29)  ;  but  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  question  of  perse- 
verance ?  The  Almighty  has  set  His  law  ;— "  He  that  endureth 
to  the  end  the  same  shall  be  saved."  Of  course  if  He  elects 
He  attends  to  that  prerequisite.  Nor  has  redemption  any  thing 
to  do  with  the  question.  For  men  are  deeply  convicted  and 
thoroughly  evangelized  in  all  preliminary  ways  as  the  fruit  of 
a  Redeemer,  when  no  one  pretends  that  they  are  even  con- 
verted. Why  may  not  conversion,  before  men  are  confirmed 
and  settled — as  our  passage  has  \t,  '' set  fast" — be  equally 
indecisive  ?  Our  Saviour  says  it  is.  ''  They  on  the  rock  are 
they  which  receive  the  word  with  joy,  which  for  a  while 
believe,  and  in  time  of  temptation  fall  away"(Lu.  8:  13). 
Ezekiel  is  treated  with  singular  disrespect.  He  tells  us 
plainly,  "  When  the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his  righteous- 
ness, all  his  righteousness  shall  not  be  mentioned  ;  in  his 
trespass  that  he  hath  trespassed  and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath 
sinned,  in  them  shall  he  die"  (Ez.  18  :  24).  And  Paul  says, 
"  Enlightened  and  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift  and  made  par- 
takers of  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  they  shall  fall  away  "  (Heb.  6  : 
4,  6).  He  speaks  of  himself  as  becoming  a  cast-away  (i  Cor. 
9  :  27).      And    in  a  sentence   ruined  by   Italics   (see    English 


40  ROMANS. 

Version)  he  just  tells  us  st?npUciter,  "  Now  the  just  shall  live 
by  faith  ;  but  if  he  draw  back*  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure 
in  him  (Heb.  lo  :  38).  This  shows  the  importance  of  the 
word  cTTfpl^u.  It  occurs  thirteen  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. We  are  not  to  destroy  euphony,  but  "  set  Ji/yn  "  will 
convey  the  idea  in  every  instance.  "  He  set  His  face  firm  to 
go  to  Jerusalem"  ("  steadfastly  set,  E.  V.,  Lu.  9:51).  "  Between 
us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  set  firm"  ("  fixed,"  E.  V., 
Lu.  16  :  26).  "When  thou  art  converted  "  (Peter  had  been 
converted  before)  "  set  firm  "  (strengthen,  E.  V.)  the  brethren" 
(Lu.  22  :  32.)  That  is,  try  all  of  you  to  be  lifted  above  apos- 
tacy  by  being  "  set  fast "  in  moral  strength.  Again,  this  text, 
*'  To  the  end  ye  may  be  set  fast."  Again,  toward  the  close  of 
the  epistle,  "  Who  is  of  power  to  set  you  firm  according  to  my 
gospel."  Then  to  the  Thessalonians,  "to  set  you  firm" 
(i  Thess.  3:2)  ;  "to  the  end  he  may  set  your  hearts  firm  "(v.  13); 
"and  to  set  you  firm  in  every  good  word  and  work  "  (2  Thess. 
2  :  17)  ;  "who  will  set  you  firm"  (3  :  3).  Then  James  adopts 
the  expression  ; — "  Set  your  hearts  firm  "  (5:8);  and  Peter, 
using  it  once  in  each  epistle,  "  After  you  have  suffered  a  while 
make  you  perfect,  set  you  firm  (stablish  E.  V.),  strengthen, 
settle  you  "  (i  Pet.  5  :  10)  ;  "and  are  set  firm  in  the  present 
truth"  (2  Pet.  I  :  12)  ;  John  ending  with  the  counsel,  "Set 
firm  the  things  that  remain  that  are  ready  to  die"  (Rev.  3  :  2). 
This  comes  as  near  to  being  technical  as  we  can  easily  imagine. 
And  the  doctrine  that  emerges  has  been  much  neglected.  A 
tree  may  perish  when  it  is  a  little  sapling,  especially  if  it  "  have 
no  root,"  that  is,  but  little  root  (Matt.  13:6),  or  grow  "  among 
thorns  "  (Matt.  13  :  22)  ;  but  when  it  becomes  a  tree,  the  case 
is  different.  Paul  evidently  contemplates  a  time  when  there 
is  no  moral  possibility  of  falling  away.  And  though  Solomon 
fell  away,  and  David  and  Peter,  and  Peter  had  to  be  "  co7i- 
verted''  to  resume  his  state,  yet  Paul  tells  the  Philippians 
plainly,  "  Having  begun  a  good  work  in  you,  he  will  finish  it 
unto  the  day  of  Christ"  (Phil,  i  :  6),  yet  he  spoils  it  as  a  text 

*  The  E.  V.  has  it,  "  If  any  man  draw  back,"  putting  what  it  interpolates 
in  Italics. 


CHAPTER  I.  41 

for  creeds,  where  it  always  stands  first,  by  making  it  special 
and  really  reducing  it  to  this  thing  of  setti?ig  fast ;  for  he  says, 
It  is  meet  to  think  this  of  you  all.  Why?  Because  all  men 
persevere  ?  On  the  contrary,  because  ye  have  been  specially 
confirmed  ;  "  I  have  had  you  in  my  heart"  [ib.  v.  7),  having 
^'  greatly  longed  after  you  in  the  bowels  of  Jesus  Christ " 
{ib.  V.  8)  ;  and  because  I,  a  discerner  of  spirits  (i  Cor.  12  :  10), 
have  this  confidence  of  your  soul's  salvation. 

Now  this  ''  setting  firm  "  is  not  a  thing  for  a  man  to  be  con- 
fident of,  or  to  be  often  conscious  of  in  his  own  condition  ; 
but  to  be  striving  after.  Men,  undoubtedly  converted,  are 
to  make  their  calling  and  election  sure.  The  stout  oak  is  in 
but  slender  danger,  though  humility  is  of  the  very  sturdiness 
of  its  safety.  Nevertheless,  "  God  is  not  unrighteous  to  forget 
our  work  and  labor  of  love  "  (Heb.  6  :  10).  Paul  got  past 
the  cast-away,  and  shouted  his  believing  confidence  :  "  I  have 
fought  a  good  fight  "  (2  Tim.  4:  7)  ;  "I  know  whom  I  have 
believed"  (2  Tim.  i:  12);  "  I  am  ready  to  be  offered" 
(2  Tim.  4:6);  "  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of 
righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  Judge,  shall  give 
me  at  that  day  "  (2  Tim.  4  :  8). 

Now,  toward  this  being  ''  set  finn'  Paul  enumerates  the 
instruments. 

"  That  I  may  impart  unto  you  some  spiritual  gift."  This 
•of  course  was  chiefly  piety.  Nothing  else  would  set  them  firm. 
But  we  cannot  say  that  it  was  not  also  miracle.  All  the 
■^''powers''  went  under  this  name  oi^' spiritual''  (i  Cor.  12:1; 
14  :  I,  12).  Moreover  the  imparting  was  of  itself  miraculous. 
And  we  have  to  go  further  and  say,  that  piety  was  added  to  as 
a  gift  under  the  hands  of  the  apostles  (2  Tim.  i  :  6). 

But  this  leaves  us  opportunity  to  explain  how  all  miracles  were 
■done  by  men.  When  Moses  brought  water  out  of  the  rock,  he 
did  not  bring  water  out  of  the  rock  :  on  the  contrary,  he  was 
cursed  for  dreaming  that  he  did  (Num.  20  :  10).  When  Christ 
raised  Lazarus,  the  man  did  not  raise  him,  but  the  God.  When 
Christ  stood  out  of  His  grave  clothes,  so  that  His  very  turban 
lay  where   He   vanished  out    of  it,    "  wrapped  together  in   a 


42  ROMANS. 

place  by  itself"  (Jo.  20  :  7),  it  was  not  His  soul  that  waked  His 
body  ;  nor  His  body  that  rolled  back  the  stone  ;  nor  even  His 
angels,  physically,  though  they  were  said  to  do  it :  for  we  do 
not  know  where  they  got  their  bodies,  or  whether  their  God  in 
the  skies  did  not  extemporize  for  them  flesh,  and  move  the 
stone  by  His  own  omnipotence.  We  really  do  not  know.  But 
there  is  an  unnoticed  passage  in  Timothy  that  sheds  wonderful 
light  on  all  miracle.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  very  thing 
covered  by  our  text,  viz.,  the  imparting  of  gifts.  And  if  we 
will  examine  the  passage,  we  will  find  there  was  little  more 
variety  of  gifts  than  Paul  longed  to  impart  to  the  Romans. 
''  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee"  (i  Tim.  4  :  14).  Now 
certainly  that  was  pious  {ib.  vs.  18,  19),  and  miraculous  (Acts 
8  :  17),  and  everything  else  :  and  just  as  we  begin  to  wonder 
that  man  could  act  so  like  God,  and  the  ''Presbytery,"  even 
in  that  miraculous  age,  confer  such  a  thing  as  spiritual  increase 
of  grace,  a  sentence  falls  from  Paul  which  blazes  out  with  light 
back  to  the  beginning  of  history.  "  Which  was  given  thee 
by  prophecy  ! ''  (i  Tim.  4  :  14).  What  does  that  mean  ?  What 
can  be  given  to  a  man  by  prophecy  ?  Now  that  Greek  dcd  is  an 
extraordinary  particle.  If  we  translate  it  ''by''  we  often 
obscure  everything.  "  This  is  He  who  came  by  water  "  (i  Jo. 
5  :  6),  might  featly  mean  anything  better  than  what  the 
English  could  give  as  the  idea.  *'  By  whom  also  He  made  the 
worlds  "  (Heb.  i  :  2).  Why,  Paul  is  speaking  of  Christ  in  his 
human  nature  !  Let  us,  therefore,  plunge  into  the  study  of 
(5ia,  and    see  what  this  particle  can  really  do. 

Among  its  numerous  meanings  it  implies  the  substance  of 
that  which  is  done  or  said.  As  for  example,  "  He  spake  by  a 
parable"  (Lu.  8  :  4).  That  simply  means  that  "  He  spake  in 
parables,"  or  that  "  He  spake  parables."  Again,  ''  Nothing  is 
common  by  itself  "  (14  :  14).  There,  by  the  bye,  the  EngHsh 
heaves  into  sight  as  having  something  of  the  same.  Again, 
"  Exhorted  the  brethren  by  many  words  "  (Acts  15  :  32), 
where  of  course  the  words  were  the  exhortation.  But  now, 
coming  right  up  to  the  case  in  hand,  did  sometimes  means,  not 
the  substance,  but  in  a  way  that  can  be  very  clearly  stated,  the 


CHAPTER  I.  45 

necessary  accompaniment.  "  This  is  He  who  came  by  water  and 
blood  "  (i  Jo.  5  :  6).  He  could  not  come  without.  Remission 
and  cleansing  were  the  great  substance  of  His  errand.  "  We 
walk  by  faith  "  (2  Cor.  5  :  7).  ''  Not  by  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
goats"  (Heb.  9  :  12).  "  By  the  letter  and  circumcision  dost 
transgress"  (Rom.  2  :  27).  In  all  these  cases  it  is  not  "by 
the  blood"  or  "  by  the  letter"  or  "  by  faith  "  in  any  usual 
English,  but  witJi  these  as  a  necessary  accompaniment.  So  of 
Christ  it  is  said  (Col.  i  :  15-18),  first,  that  He  "  is  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God,"  which  must  of  course  be  talking  of  His 
human  nature  ;  that  He  is  the  "  first-born  " — "  the  first-born 
from  the  dead,"  and  "  the  first-born  of  every  creature  ;  "  that 
He  was  "  before  all  things,"  not  surely  in  time,  any  more  than 
that  in  time  He  was  "  the  first-born  from  the  dead  ;  and,  next, 
that  in  Him  all  things  stood  together"  {ib.  v.  17)  ;  then, 
coming  to  our  particular  particle,  that  "  all  things  were 
created  bv  Him  and  for  Him  "  in  the  way  of  course  of  necessary 
accompaniment.  "■  In  Him  all  things  stood  together,"  because 
the  God  that  was  to  be  incarnate  in  Him  arranged  for  that 
final  sovereignty  as  each  thing  came  to  be.  He  builded  the 
universe  upon  Him.  "  By  Him,"  in  the  sense  of  necessary 
accompaniment,  "  all  things  were  created."  He  was  the  "first- 
born," because  nothing  was  born  except  "  for  Him,"  and 
nothing  was  new-born  or  "  born  from  the  dead,"  without  Him. 
And  He  ''  is  the  beginning,"  as  Augustine  explains  (see  Aug.  on 
Jo.  17  :  Tr.  105,  g  8)  in  the  might  of  His  '*  predestiny."  He 
was  the  most  conspicuous  personage  in  heaven  ;  not  simply 
for  the  predestined  incarnation,  but  actually.  He  did  more 
than  any  personage  in  heaven,  though  He  was  not  yet  born. 
He  did  it  nobly  and  splendidly  on  the  base  of  His  intended 
advent.  God  framed  His  whole  scheme  upon  Him.  And, 
what  cannot  be  challenged  for  a  moment,  millions  were  par- 
doned by  the  means  of  a  sacrifice  that  had  not  yet  come  into 
being. 

This  will  all  be  needed  in  another  part  of  the  epistle  ;  but, 
for  the  time  being,  it  explains  the  imparting  Paul  is  speaking 
of,  and  how  it  is  done,  and  in  fact  the  method  of  all  miracles. 


44  ROMANS. 

When  Moses  struck  the  rock  what  did  he  do  to  effect  the 
marvel  ?  Of  course  he  had  not  the  slenderest  agency  in  the 
results  that  followed.  When  Christ  healed  the  woman  He  said 
that  ''  virtue  had  gone  out  of  Him."  If  that  was  a  sense  in  the 
man,  distinct  from  the  Most  High,  that  was  but  another 
miracle.  When  Moses  rolled  back  the  waters  of  the  sea,  we 
are  not  to  suppose  that  the  man  stood  in  the  place  of  God,  in . 
such  a  sense  as  to  budge  a  particle  of  the  moving  water. 
What  did  he  do,  therefore  ?  He  did  exactly  what  the 
Presbytery  did.  He  wrought  '^  by  prophecy''  Eli]  a.h  prayed 
for  rain  (i  Ki.  18  :  42,  45)  ;  Jesus /r^7<?^  for  Lazarus  (Jo.  11  : 
42),  and  we  are  to  add  that  in  ;  but  the  miracle  was  given  ^'  by 
prophecy  j  "  that  is,  before  the  man  dared  to  act,  the  God  must 
intimate  the  certainty  of  a  Divine  fulfilment.  Elijah,  with  the 
priests  of  Baal  (i  Ki.  18  :  19)  would  need  a  prophecy  that 
God  would  work  ;  and  even  David  would  hardly  have  ventured 
against  Goliath  without  doing  it  ^^  by  prophecy  ;''  that  is,  with 
the  ^^  necessary  accompaniment''  of  an  intimation  from  on  high. 
Such  would  have  been  the  case  with  Paul  in  any  miracle  for 
the  Romans;  it  must  be  wrought  ^^ by  prophecy."  And  he 
expounds  this  further,  for  he  says  : — ''  According  to  the 
prophecies  that  went  before  on  thee,  that  thou  by  them 
mightest  war  a  good  warfare  "  (i  Tim.  i  :  18). 

^'■Impart."  Mtrd  is  a  different  preposition  ixom.  cvv,  and 
means  amid  along  with  the  idea  of  with.  Paul's  word  has  the 
implication  of  shari?tg,  therefore,  or  of  imparting,  as  the 
Presbytery  did,  the  like  of  what  they  had  themselves. 

12.  But  that  is,  that  in  you  we  may  be  helped  forward 
together  by  the  faith  in  each,  both  yours  and  mine. 

"But"  ((je) — a  very  essential  little  particle.  We  are  not 
to  translate  "That  is"  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  but  ''  But  that  is,"  the 
force  of  the  ''but,"  being  to  keep  the  benefit  just  spoken  of 
within  the  sweep  of  the  words,  *'  On  the  one  hand"  which  cover 
the  thought  of  benefit  to  others.  "On  the  other  hand"  he 
is  about  to  come  (v.  13)  to  the  idea  of  ^^  fruit "  in  themselves. 

"Helped  forward  together."  ''On  the  one  hand"  he 
wished  bright  faith  at  Rome  that  it  might  be  "published"  every- 


CHAPTER  I.  45 

where,  and  he  longed  to  set  it  firm  that  this  Pharos  light  might 
increase  among  the  nations.  Then,  furthermore,  he  wanted  it 
bright  and  steady  for  its  effect  upon  himself.  Paul  hesitated 
not  a  moment  to  count  his  own  frame  of  mind  important  to  all 
the  world.  ''Comforted''  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  That  is  not  the 
word.  ^apaKokku  means  to  call  near,  to  summon.  It  is  the 
word  which  in  the  participial  shape  means  the  one  called  ?iear 
or  summoned,  i.e.,  the  Paraclete.  Now  men  are  shouted  to 
for  a  thousand  purposes,  and  one  of  them  is  to  keep  up  their 
courage.  So  the  word  has  an  inconvenient  multiplicity  of 
signification  : — Called  on  for  /nip,  i.e.,  entreated  (Lu.  15  :  28)  ; 
called  out  to  to  help  themselves,  i.e.,  encouraged  {Y.^\i.  6:22);  called 
out  to  to  be  of  good  cheer,  i.e.,  coffiforted  (2  Cor.  i  :  4)  ;  called  near 
to  stand  for  us  or  defend  us,  i.e.,  to  be  our  advocate  (i  Jo.  2  :  i)  ; 
and,  more  rightly  still,  called  near  to  do  for  us  generally,  or  to 
be  our  Paraclete,  i.e.,  to  help  us  (Acts  28  :  20).  This  was  the 
best  sense  for  Paul.  To  be  "  comforted''  was  but  a  trifle.  To 
hQ''  helped  forward"  \\'OM\i\  be  felt  in  ''  all  the  world"  by  its 
effect  upon  the  apostle. 

"Together."  The  natural  accusative  before  the  infinitive 
would  be  ''you,"  as  found  in  the  eleventh  verse.  The  two  in- 
finitives follow  consecutively.  But  the  aw  in  the  latter  gives 
us  a  right  to  "we."  It  is  not  necessary  to  say  "I"  (E.  V. 
&  Re.),  ior  I  being  with  you  "comforted"  (Re.)  makes  it  nec- 
essary to  supply  two  pronouns  ;  nor  is  it  correct  to  say  /  com- 
forted together  with  you  (E.  v.),  for  that  throws  out  "  in  you," 
a  most  important  element.  The  E.  V.  supplies  it  in  the  mar- 
gin. The  most  effective  rendering  is  to  be  content  with  "  we," 
and  then  everything  is  expressed.  ''  That  in  you  -we  may  be 
helped  forward  together  by  the  faith  in  each,  both  yours  and 

mine." 

"  On  the  other  hand,"  {pi)  the  apostle  .  goes  to  the 
other  side  of  the  result,  that  he  may  speak  of  their  personal 
benefit. 

13.  On  the  other  hand,  I  would  not  have  you  to  be  ignorant, 
brethren,  how  I  often  purposed  to  come  unto  you  and  was 
prevented  hitherto,  that  I  might  have  some  fruit  likewise 
in  yourselves,  just  as  also  in  the  other  nations. 


46  ROMANS. 

"Likewise  in  yourselves."  This  "likewise"  tells  the 
tale  of  the  Tzpu-ov /uev  (v.  8),  and  of  the  6e  (v.  13)  ;  that  is, 
**  on  t/ie  ont' /la/h/,'' and '^  on  the  other  hand.''  His  first  great 
zeal  about  Rome  was  its  metropolitan  example  ;  but  his  sec- 
ond, the  fruit  "  likewise  also  in  themselves,  jnst  as  in  other  na- 
tions." 

14.  I  am  debtor  both  to  Greeks  and  barbarians,  both  to 
wise  and  unwise." 

This  was  the  only  sort  of  indebtedness  that  Paul  acknowl- 
edged. He  tells  these  same  people,  "  Owe  no  man  anything 
but  to  love  one  another,"  (13  :  8),  which  has  been  made  ridicu- 
lous as  forbidding  loans  :  practically,  forbidding  capital  !  Paul's 
imperative  is  but  a  strong  indicative,  as  we  shall  see  i?i  loco. 
Meanwhile  he  acts  upon  the  principle, — All  a  man  can  owe  to 
others  is  love.  And  under  this  one  debt  he  must  preach  to  all 
men. 

We  might  pause  upon  the  fact  that  the  spirit  of  the  age  made 
little  of  men  not  GriECO-Roman,  and  not  refined. 

15.  So  as  concerns  my  own  eagerness,  it  is  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  you  who  are  in  Rome  also. 

Not  "  as  viiichas  in  me  is  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  whatever  w^e  might 
infer  from  Rom.  12  :  18,  but  literally,  "  the  readiness  according  to 
myself  is  to  preach  etc.  ;  "  the  reserve  being  that  he  is  willing,  but 
there  may  be  a  doubt  about  the  Almighty  ;  for  he  has  already 
told  them  that  he  must  be  prospered  ''  in  the  will  of  God''  to 
come  unto  them  (v.  10). 

"  In  Rome  also."  Well,  why  not  ?  Reasons  throng.  First, 
it  was  a  haughty  capital.  But  then  he  was  not  "  ashamed  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ."  Again,  it  was  surfeited  with  new 
faiths.  What  could  he  hope  for  still  another  ?  Much,  confi- 
dently ;  for  his  ''gospel"  was  "the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion to  everyone  that  believes." 

So  now  he  is  approaching  the  centre  of  his  work  : — 

16.  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ;  for  it 
is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  everyone  that  be- 
lieves, both  to  the  Jew,  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek. 

''Ashamed."     Practically  the  gospel    was    much    despised. 


CHAPTER  I.  47 

Contemporaneous  history  hardly  mentions  Christ.  The  chief 
notices  seem  forged  (Jos.  Ant.  C.  3,  also  Tacitus).  Paul  all 
along  feels  the  absence  of  influence  (Acts  17  :  12),  and  eagerly 
longs  for  metropolitan  believers  (Phil.  4  :  22).  Yet  the  work 
was  among  poor  saints  (Jas.  2  :  5).  And,  under  Nero's  sword 
(2  Tim.  4  :  16),  he  went  out  into  the  darkness  with  the  poorest 
hopes  humanly  which  any  great  leader  could  have  left  behind 
him. 

"  Ashamed  of  Jesus  !  " 

is  a  sort  of  mockery  now-a-days.  But  in  Paul's  time 
it  meant  something. 

"It"  not  "//^."  "The  power  of  God"  is  a  strong  title 
to  give  to  a  message,  but  it  is  explained  in  the  next  verse.  It 
cannot  be  a^roc  ("  he  ")  that  is  meant,  for  the  gospel  is  called 
^^  the  power  of  God-  further  on  (i  Cor.  i  :  18).  Instruments 
are  called  powers  elsewhere  (i  Cor.  12  :  29).  The  ''gospel;' 
like  Philip  (Acts  8  :  10),  "  was  the  great/^i^'^r./ 6^^</,"  because 
it  was  "  unto  salvation ; "  because  it  was  "  for  every  one ; " 
and  because  it  was>r  every  one  that  beUeved.  The  potenti- 
ality, the  universality  and  the  gratuity  of  the  gospel,  even  though 
in  itself  it  had  no  power,  can  discover  plenty  of  meaning  in 
calling  it  "  the  power  of  God.'' 

This  great  sentence,  one  of  the  most  significant  in  ail  the 
epistle,  finds  its  complete  unveilment  in  the  seventeenth  verse. 
Before  we  pass  to  that  let  us  touch  an  intermediate  expres- 
sion :— "  Both  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek." 

"Go  not  from  house  to  house"  (Luke  10:  7)  had  meant 
that  they  tvere  not  to  scatter  their  work,  but  begin  at  an  ac- 
quired centre,  and  push  their  influence  out  from  where  it  was 
the  most.  It  is  a  prime  rule.  Paul  always  struck  for  the 
synagogue  (Acts  17  :  i,  2,  17  ;  18  :  4)-  And  so  did  Christ 
(Luke  4  :  16).  Moreover  they  frequented  the  temple,  and 
made  much  of  its  holy  services  (Matt.  26  :  55).  God  had 
been  building  a  cradle  for  two  millenniums  (Gen.  12  :  i).  It 
had  not  been  altogether  a  failure,  vile  as  it  was.  And  there- 
fore it  was  told  them  that  they  were  to  begin  at  Jerusalem 
(Lu.  24  :  47).       Accountability  began  that  way,  and  was  to  be 


48  ROMANS. 

measured  similarly,  ''  of  the  Jew  first,  and  also  of  the  Greek  ;  '* 
and,  furthermore,  as  the  justest  and  most  rational  conclusion, 
Judaism  was  more  hopeful  than  Paganism.  Salvation  would 
spread  the  faster  from  Jewish  homes.  At  first  it  did  do  so.  There 
was  to  be  an  "advantage  of  the  Jew"  and  a  "  profit  of  circum- 
cision "  (Rom.  3  :  i).  And,  considering  the  fewness  of  Israel, 
more  of  that  race  were  to  be  brought  into  the  faith  than  of  any 
other  of  the  tribes  of  men.  The  rule  of  results  therefore  is  to 
be, — "  Both  "  (not  forgetting  the  ri,  for  Paul  is  everywhere 
throwing  Jew  and  Gentile  together)  ''to  the  Jew  first,*and also 
to  the  Greeks 

17.  For  in  it  is  the  righteousness  of  God  revealed  from 
faith  to  faith ;  as  it  has  been  written,  The  righteous  from 
faith  shall  live. 

Under  the  sweep  of  this  "for"  come  two  important  ques- 
tions :  (i)  what  is  "  salvation  V  (v.  i6),  and  (2),  what  has 
"■  the  gospel "  to  do  with  it  ?  for  the  forthputting  has  been  very 
strong  ; — The  gospel  is  "  the  power  of  God ;"  and  it  is  "  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  J ''  and  there  is  held  a  monopoly 
by  what  is  called  "faith  j  "  for  the  gospel  is  "  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  unto  every  one  that  believes'' 

(i)  "  Salvation^''  according  to  this  seventeenth  verse,  means, 
simply,  to  be  made  to  live.  Nor  is  this  an  uncommon 
metaphor.  The  Bible  is  full  of  it.  When  Adam  sinned,  he 
died.  Death  is  our  grimmest  enemy,  and  life  our  comprehen- 
sive friend.  Rhetoric  has  seized  upon  both  of  them.  And 
the  apostate  man  is  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  while  the 
saved  sinner  is  "  alive  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

But  this  rhetoric  takes  on  distinctness  when  we  say  what  this 
"///>"  is;  and  Paul  answers  it  perfectly.  He  says  "the 
righteous  shall  live''  It  was  unfortunate  to  say  "  The  just" 
(E.  v.),  for  those  diversities  shake  the  continuity  of  a  sentence. 
"  The  righteousness  of  G-od  "  immediately  precedes  the  men- 
tion of  "  the  righteous."  We  shall  see  their  connection  ;  though 
now  we  are  engaged  about  another  thing.  How  can  we  be  said  to 
"  live  "  when  we  have  no  righteousness  ?  Who  ever  saw  a  per- 
fect character  ?  and   whatever   is  not   perfect   is   of  the  very 


CHAPTER  I.  49 

nature  of  sinfulness.  The  very  Devil  has  some  character,  and 
loves  some  things  in  a  numbed  way  that  are  of  the  nature  of 
virtue.  The  worst  fiend  has  not  reached  certain  degrees  of 
wickedness.  And,  therefore,  we  can  appreciate  the  sentence, 
"  There  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one."  And  yet  the  Bible 
perseveres  in  talking  of  "  holy  brethren,"  and  Christ  himself 
looks  the  disciples  in  the  face  and  says,  "  Now  ye  are  clean 
through  the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  "  (  Jo.  15  :  3) 
In  this  way  we  are  prepared  to  understand  the  apostolic  expres- 
sion,— Those  ^'■righteous  from  faith."  We  understand  it  per- 
fectly if  we  make  it  absolutely  simple.  Sin  is  in  its  nature  incur- 
able. To  overcome  this  nature,  we  need  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  As  a  law  of  the  kingdom  we  are  to  ask  for  it,  and  to  ask 
for  it  with  more  or  less  clearness  in  the  name  of  our  blessed 
Redeemer.  To  do  this  of  course  requires  belief  ;  else  who 
would  do  it  ?  and  when  we  do  it  earnestly,  our  prayer  is  heard, 
and  the  faith  with  which  we  are  looking  to  the  Redeemer 
becomes  suffused  with  love,  and,  like  any  other  grace,  partakes 
oi  ^^  righteousness ;''  or,  \.o  express  it  in  commoner  language, 
becomes  touched  with  moral  light,  like  hope  and  love  and  all 
the  graces  of  the  Spirit.  Why  should  it  not  be  so,  seeing  that 
it  is  the  fruit  of  regeneration  ?  If  regeneration  be  a  moral 
change,  why  should  not  faith  be  a  moral  faith  ?  and  if  crying 
out  to  God  be  the  great  duty  of  the  sinner,  why  should  it  not 
be  moral,  like  any  other  duty  of  the  soul  ?  If  "  all  (our)  things 
(are  to)  be  done  in  love  "  (i  Cor.  16  :  14),  and  yet  cannot  be, 
till  we  are  converted,  why  should  not  faith  be  "  done  in  love  ?" 
and  why  should  it  not  only  then  be  sa7'nig  when,  like  repentance 
or  any  other  work,  it  becomes  touched  by  a  moral  nature  ? 

This  is  surely  the  thought  of  the  apostle.  Abraham  had  no 
righteousness,  but  his  "  faith  was  reckoned  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness" (4  :  9)  ;  not  that  it  was  sure  enough  righteousness,  but 
that  it  was  the  beginning  of  it.  Even  Phinehas  had  a  righteous 
act  "counted  unto  him  for  righteousness"  (Ps.  106  :  30,  31)  ; 
not  that  it  was  really  righteous,  but  the  beginning  of  it  ;  in 
other  words  it  was  the  first  fruits  of  a  new-born  nature.  And 
not  only  so,  but  it  was  the  earnest  as  well  as  the  first  fruits.     It 


so  ROMANS. 

was  the  promise  of  more.  And  that  now  distinctly  was  the 
idea  of  Paul.  ''  The  righteous  froi7i  faith  shall  live.''  This  is  his 
exact  description  of  "  salvation.''  Of  course  it  is  very  condensed, 
but  the  whole  story  is  told  in  other  places.  Christ,  having 
borne  our  guilt,  has  put  within  our  reach  this  sort  of  "  j-^/z^^- 
tion  "  (v.  1 6).  We  are  to  pray  for  it.  While  we  pray  for  it,  we 
are  to  attack  sin  all  along  the  line.  If  we  persevere  in  this  we 
will  be  converted.  In  being  converted  there  has  beamed  into 
us  the  moral  light  that  wakens  all  graces.  Among  others  our 
very  prayer  has  been  wakened.  Prayer  is  but  an  exercise  of 
faith.  Our  faith,  if  wakened  up,  is  touched  for  the  first  time 
with  moral  light.  In  other  words  it  has  become  saving  faith  ; 
a  genuine  act  of  a  new  "  righteousness  ;  "  and  we  shall  "  live  " 
thereby,  not  only  in  the  degree  that  it  is  "  righteous^"  being 
itself  a  "  righteousness,"  but  as  the  harbinger  of  more  ;  just  as 
a  little  sanctification  is  a  harbinger  of  more  (8  :  23),  and  a  lit- 
tle cleanness  of  more  (2  Cor.  7  :  i),  and  a  little  quickening  of 
more  (i  Jo,  5  :  4),  fulfilling  definitely  the  divine  words, 
•*'  Now  the  righteous  from  faith  shall  live,  but  if  he  (not  a7iy 
man,  E.  V.)  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in 
him"  (Heb.  10  :  ^Z). 

So  much  for  the  first  question.  What  is  ''•salvation]"  It  is 
being  made  to  "  live  "  by  becoming  "  righteous  ;  "  not  '■^  from  " 
a  sure-enough  ''  righteousness"  for  that  requires  our  being  per- 
fect ;  but  ^'froni  "  a  dawning  "  righteousness  ;"  that  is  to  say, 
faith,  which  is  itself  a  beginning  of  a  righteous  life,  but,  what 
is  more,  the  harbinger  of  one  more  righteous,  on,  on,  to  the 
purity  of  Heaven. 

So  much  for  the  first  question.  (2)  Now  for  the  second. 
What  has  the  ''gospel"  (v.  16)  to  do  with  all  this  ? 

The  "gospel  "  is  not  the  redemption  of  Christ,  but  the  mes- 
sage of  it.  "  ///  it,"  we  are  told,  something  is  "■  revealed."  What 
is  that  something  ?  That  is  the  most  important  question  in  all 
the  epistle.  "  ///  //  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed."  What 
is  "  the  righteousness  of  God?  "*     Of  course  the  simplest  answer 

*  It  will  be  noticed  that  "  power''  (v.  16),  and  "  righteousness''  (v.  17), 
and  "  wrath  "  (v.  18).   are  all   without  the   article.    This  is  significant  ;  for 


CHAPTER  I.  51 

would  be,  Just  what  Gabriel's  "■  righteoiisjiess  "  is,  or  anybody 
else's.  As  a  general  thing  this  is  the  safer  understanding  of 
words,  and  has,  so  to  speak,  priority.  In  the  sentence 
before  ''  the  power  of  God  "  is  spoken  of,  and  in  the  sentence 
after,  ''the  wrath  of  God ;''  and  so  "-the  righteousness  of  God'' 
has  a  right  to  be  considered,  if  possible,  that  quality  in  the 
Almighty. 

'V\\Q  ''  righteousness  of  God"  \^  brought  forward  in  ten  pas- 
sages of  the  New  Testament  scriptures.  Wc  will  quote  all  of 
them  ;  and  we  will  begin  with  those  as  to  which  nobody  hesi- 
tates in  their  simplest  meaning.  "  If  our  unrighteousness 
commend  the  righteousness  of  God  "  (Rom.  3  :  5).  "  The 
wrath  of  man  worketh  not  the  righteousness  of  God  "  (Jas.  i  : 
20).  With  no  dispute  upon  two  out  of  ten  passages  the  rest 
gather  more  right  to  the  simpler  and  more  usual  signification. 

But  now  another  two:  "To  declare  His  righteousness" 
(Rom.  3  :  25)  ;  "  To  declare  I  say  at  this  time  His  righteous- 
ness ;  that  He  might  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier  of  him  who 
believes  in  Jesus  "  (E.  V.,  3  :  26).  If  any  deserved  to  be 
unusual,  these  might  seem  to  do  so.  And  many  of  the 
Reformed  seize  them  at  once  for  what  is  a  forensic  significance. 
Dr.  Hodge,  strangest  of  all,  does  nothing  of  the  kind.  He 
adopts  the  sense  "  as  of  the  general  rectitude  of  God" 
(see  Com.  in  loco).  It  "  is  recommended,"  so  he  tells  us,  by 
the  consideration  that  such  is  "  the  common  ?neaning  of  the  7vord 
righteousness" 

The  eight,  therefore,  are  now  reduced  to  si.x.  And  I  sub- 
mit whether  the  disqualification  of  these  si.x  for  what  Dr. 
Hodge  confesses  is  the  ''  com?non  meaning"  is  not  still  further 
fearfully  diminished  by  the  whimsical  differences  of  the  signi- 
fications by  which  it  is  to  be  replaced. 

if  the  two  former  had  the  article  in  the  Greek  it  would  be  easier  to  attach 
superstitious  ideas  to  "  Mt'  gospel"  as  the  only  "power"  and  to  "  the" 
righteousness  as  something  special  and  artificial  in  redemption.  We  do  not 
say  "  a  "  righteousness,  for  that  in  English  would  look  more  special  still  ; 
nor  "  righteousness  "  simply,  for  that  would  be  awkward  in  our  language  ; 
but  we  give  this  notice  that  the  English  in  its  present  shape  has  no  warrant 
from  an  article  to  be  anything  but  usual  righteousness. 


52  ROMANS. 

Let  us  quote  the  six  : — ''  Seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
His  righteousness  "  (Matt.  6:  2i'h)-  *'  ^^^  ^^^  ^^  ^^^  righteousjiess 
of  God  is  revealed''  (Rom.  i  :  17).  "But  now  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  without  the  law  is  manifested  ;  even  the  right- 
eousness of  God  which  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  "  (Rom.  3  : 
21,  22).  Let  it  be  considered  that  this  is  really  close  by  the 
other  passages  which  Dr.  Hodge  gives  up  as  having  the  "  com- 
mon meaning  ").  "  Who,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteous- 
ness, and  going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness, 
have  not  submitted  to  the  righteousness  of  God  "  (Rom.  10  : 
3).  "  He  made  Him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin  ;  that 
we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him  "  (2  Cor. 
5:21).  "  Like  precious  faith  with  us  in  the  righteousness  of 
God,  and  our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ  "  (2  Pet.  i  :   i). 

Any  fair  minded  exegete  must  admit  that  refusing  the  plain- 
est interpretation  could  only  be  justified  by  the  clearest  agree- 
ment in  an  understanding  the  other  way.  That  to  say,  The 
righteousness  of  God  does  not  mean  God's  righteousness, 
when  it  is  confessed  that  four  times  it  does,  is  a  gloss  that  we 
could  only  excuse  if  it  were  consistent  with  itself  ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  there  is  no  agreement,  and  the  debate  is  endless. 
One  commentator  will  hold  that  God's  righteousness  is  "  God's 
method  of  justification  "  (Meyer,  Bengel)  ;  another  that  it  is 
the  righteousness  or  justified  condition  that  God  bestows 
(Alford,  De  Wette)  ;  another  that  it  is  the  righteous  or  right 
standing  that  is  acceptable  to  him  (Calvin,  Neander).  One 
actually  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  first  "  is  most  generally 
received,"  but  that  "  the  second  seems  to  be  again  coming 
into  vogue  "  (Hodge,  Com.  in  loc).  Can  any  thing  be  more 
admonitory  ?  We  confess,  men  might  be  driven  after  this 
fashion  if  the  usual  sense  were  impossible.  But,  on  the  con- 
trary, such  a  sense  is  of  the  very  best.  We  will  not  try  this  in 
each  case  of  the  six,  but  adhere  to  one  (v.  17),  believing  that 
the  most  thorough  exposition  of  one  in  its  most  simple  signifi- 
cation, will  cover  all  the  rest,  and  prepare  us  to  understand  at 
once  the  two  which  we  meet  afterward  in  this  epistle. 

"  In  it  J  "  that  is,  in  "  the  gospel^     The  gospel  is  ''  the  power 


CHAPTER  I.  53 

of  God,"  not  suo  jnotu^  for  *'  the  letter  killeth,"  but  because  it 
is  His  great  instrument.  No  one  doubts  that  He  could  con- 
vert by  the  ten  commandments.  He  did  convert  by  a  very 
imperfect  knowledge  of  the  gospel.  He  does  convert  idiots 
and  infants,  with  no  gospel  at  all.  But  it  pleases  Him  to 
employ  the  gospel,  and  that  because,  as  a  moral  lesson,  it  is  so 
suitably  the  very  ''power  "  of  the  Almighty. 

Now  let  it  be  understood  :  We  are  not  speaking  of  redemp- 
tion. That  is  a  thing  of  court.  That  is  a  thing  vital  to  the 
salvation  of  a  soul.  Put  that  entirely  away.  We  are  speaking 
of  its  message.  After  mercy  has  been  bought,  the  message  of 
it  God  uses  as  his  favorite  ^'- poivcr.'"'  And  now  why  ?  because 
"/«//"  a  certain  ^'-  ri^^htcoiisncss  is  revealed ^  That  tells  the 
whole  story.  If  ^'-righteousness'"  be  '''revealed""  to  a  man,  he  is 
himself  righteous,  and  that  by  its  very  light.  How  else  could 
he  be  converted  ?  And  the  "  righteousness  revealed,"'  whose 
righteousness  had  it  better  be  ?  Not  his  own  ;  for  that  is 
imperfect.  Not  of  a  tree  or  a  bird,  for  there  is  no  such  thing. 
Not  Gabriel's  ;  for  that  is  far  away.  But  "  the  righteousness  of 
God,""  and  that  eminently  in  the  gospel  ;  that  finest  case  of 
righteousness,  the  salvation  of  the  sinner  ;  that  which  is  to 
feed  Heaven  (Is.  35  :  8)  ;  that  which  entered  into  the  heart  of 
Lydia  (Acts  16  :  14);  that  which  befell  the  Thessalonians  who 
were  to  "  receive  the  love  of  the  truth  "  (Thess.  2  :  10)  ;  that 
which  makes  us  like  to  Him,  when  we  "  see  Him  as  he  is  " 
(i  John  3:2);  and  that  which  bedecks  all  saints  when  "  God 
hath  shined  into  their  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  "  (2  Cor.  4:6). 

So  much  for  "  Goifs  righteousness"  and  Paul's  calling  the 
gospel  the  power  of  God  because  *'  /;/  //  the  righteousness  of 
God  is  revealed"' 

This  fits  all  the  other  sentences. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  ransom.  That  is  forensic.  It  is  not  a 
matter  of  immediate  regeneration.  It  is  a  tale  only  of  the 
instrument.  God,  who  frees  us  by  the  cross,  and  who  lifts  us 
by  His  power,  makes  the  instrument  of  that  power  to  be  the 
message  of  the  gospel.     For,  to  lift  us  at  all,  we  must  have  an 


54  ROMANS. 

idea  of  righteousness,  and  there  is  no  righteousness  that  shines 
Hke  God's,  and  there  is  no  shining  of  God's  righteousness  half 
so  bright,  and,  therefore,  half  so  fitted  to  be  instrumentally 
ordained,  as  that  which  shines  in  the  cross  of  the  Redeemer. 

Now  this  links  all  these  notices  together.  First,  "  the  gos- 
pel is  the  power  of  God."  Why  ?  because  it  is  the  instrument 
of  God's  power  in  revealing  righteousness.  Second,  "  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation,"  and  why?  Because  revealing 
righteousness  is  itself  salvation,  discerning  righteousness 
being  nothing  else  than  being  righteous,  and  death  the 
darkness  of  the  sinner.  Third,  "/^  evejj  one  that  believeth.'' 
Why  ?  Because  the  righteous  lives  by  faith.  He  becomes 
righteous  in  the  shape  of  faith.  He  must  see  righteousness 
by  the  eye  of  faith  ;  and  if  the  reason  that  the  gospel  is  the 
power  of  God  is  that  in  it  God's  righteousness  is  shown,  then 
it  must  be  to  every  one  that  believeth,  because  believing  is  a 
sight  of  righteousness  ;  that  is,  faith,  when  it  becomes  saving, 
must  be  moral  faith  ;  the  boyish  faith  of  our  infancy  must 
be  suffused  with  light,  (as  the  Catholics  say,  "  infused  with 
love"),  faith  itself  becoming  righteousness  (Trent,  Canon  12), 
that  is,  the  newborn  sight  of  a  better  nature.  And  here  comes 
in  the  expression  "from  faith  to  faith."  It  has  been  misera- 
bly  thrown  into  waste.  And  yet  it  helps  marvelously.  Shedd 
reads  it,  ''  from  one  degree  of  faith  to  another."  Hodge  reads 
it,  ^'  entirely  of  faith."  Meyer  reads  it,  "  for  the  increase  of 
faith."  McKnight  reads  it,  "  which  springs  from  faith,  and 
which  faith  receives."  In  so  critical  a  passage  we  scorn  any- 
thing general,  and  insist  on  an  absolute  meaning.  "////Vy" 
that  is  in  the  gospel,  ''  the  moral  excellence  of  God  is  revealed^'' 
so  that  our  poor  souls  see  it  and  therein  is  conversion  ;  but 
they  see  it  not  without  God's  making  *'  the  gospel  "  His  ^' power  " 
(v.  16),  and  bestowing  on  us  '^/aith/'  In  other  words  our 
seeing  it  is  '■^ faith ^  And  now  (more  inwardly  still),  we  see 
it  "out  of"  (i/c)  faith.  Faith  is  that  in  the  illuminations  of 
which  we  get  our  ideas  of  righteousness.  The  God-given 
dawning  of  ''faith"  is  that  "out  of"  (««)  whose  very 
.bosom  we  get  the  light  to  see  the  righteousness  of  God.     Hence 


CHAPTER  I.  55 

Paul  declares  that  "  faith "  is  the  "  substance  "  and  the 
"evidence"  (Heb.  ii  :i)  "of  things  hoped  for"  and  "not 
seen."  Grant  that  it  is  the  dawning  of  our  own  righteous- 
ness, and  of  course  it  is  the  dawning  of  God's  righteous- 
ness in  any  increased  sense  and  warmer  appreciation  of  it  by 
the  sinner.  And  this  makes  perfect  the  expression  ''from 
faith  to  fdithy  Where  else  could  the  revelation  come  from,  1 
mean  mediately,  except  from  faith  ?  And  what  else  could  it 
be  made  "  to  "  except  to  faith  ?  The  meaning  is  complete. 
Righteousness  itself  exhibits  itself  in  our  own  young  right- 
eousness, viz.,  in  our  faith,  and  it  exhibits  itself  to  nothing 
else  possible  than  that,  viz.,  to  our  faith.  And  this  like  a 
sum  in  arithmetic  proves  itself  all  the  way  back  to  the  begin- 
ning ;  for  that  the  righteousness  of  God  is  just  plainly  what 
we  have  stated,  viz.,  his  superior  excellence,  has  now  confir- 
mation from  the  sentence  that  it  "  is  revealed  from  faith  to 
faith  r 

"  As  it  is  written."  We  need  have  little  difficulty  now  with 
all  that  remains.  "  Live  j  "  that  we  have  already  looked  at  as  a 
name  for  ''salvation  (v.  i6).  "  The  righteous  shall  live.''  Who 
else  do  live  ?  and  in  what  else  does  life  consist  ?  "  The  right- 
eous from  faith  shall  live."  How  else  are  they  righteous, 
except  dawningly  so,  and  in  the  shape  of  "faith  r'  Or  how  else 
do  they  live?  for  it  makes  not  the  smallest  difference  whether 
this  sentence  from  Habbakuk  puts  the  "faith  "  in  the  one  part 
of  it  or  the  other.  "  The  righteous  from  faith  live,''  not  simply 
"from  "  that  wretched  beginning,  which  is  really  nothing  but 
less  sinfulness,  but  "from  "  this  as  the  earnest  of  a  better,  just 
as  we  are  said  to  h^ partakers  of  God's  holiness  (Heb.  12  :  lo)  ; 
not  that  we  are  really  holy,  but  less  sinful  ;  and  that  there  is 
dawning  in  our  mind  a  faith  that  may  proceed  to  perfectness. 

And  how  great  a  "  salvation  "  this  is  the  apostle  means  now 
to  picture  by  exhibiting  the  opposite  :  — 

18.  For  the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  upon 
all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  who  keep  back 
the  truth  in  unrighteousness. 

The  most  important  word   in  all  this  sentence  is  the  word 


56  ROMANS. 

"truth."  The  most  important  idea  in  all  this  epistle  is  that 
a  new  sight,  speaking  on  the  side  of  man,  or  a  new  light, 
speaking  on  the  side  of  God,  is  what  constitutes  righteousness, 
and  that  the  access  of  it  constitutes  conversion.  This  new 
light  is  a  moral  light,  or,  as  the  sinner  had  some  before,  a 
renewed  moral  light,  or,  more  simply  still,  a  greater  ;  the 
new  moral  sight  is  nothing  more  than  faith,  though  that 
word  is  chosen  because  it  includes  in  it  a  recognition  of 
Christ,  which  comes  very  naturally,  because  the  sight  itself 
arises  under  the  hearing  of  the  gospel  (Gal.  3:2,  5),  The 
favorite  word  that  Solomon  uses  is  ^'■wisdom.'"  He  act- 
ually opens  the  Proverbs  with  the  key.  Wisdom  is  righteous- 
ness (i  :  I,  2,  see  Com.).  Let  us  fortify  ourselves  for  a  most 
thorough  consideration  by  remembering  that  light  is  all  that  is 
necessary  for  righteousness,  and  for  all  the  graces  of  the 
Spirit.  We  can  see  this  no  more  clearly  than  in  the  announce- 
ment, "  When  He  shall  appear  we  shall  be  like  Him,  for  we 
shall  see  Him  as  He  is  "  (i  Jo.  3  :  2).  This,  of  course,  is  a  full 
exposition  of  the  last  sentence,  "  In  it,"  that  is  in  the  gospel, 
"  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed."  This  light  being 
a  moral  light,  and  answering  to  a  moral  sight,  and,  of  course, 
to  a  renewed  or  a  regenerated  conscience,  is  really  a  consti- 
tuting fact  in  all  the  Christian  graces.  Having  this  moral 
light  upon  God,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  a  moral  sight 
of  His  righteousness  (having  His  "  righteousness  revealed  "  v. 
17),  is  tantamount  to  loving  him.  Seeing  the  beauty  of  a 
picture  and  loving  a  beautiful  picture  are  one  and  the  same. 
Having  a  moral  sight  of  Christ  is  the  differentia  between  a 
common  and  a  saving  faith.  Having  a  moral  sight  of  our- 
selves is  repentance  in  its  very  genuine  self.  And  so  a  m.oral 
sight  is  the  gracious  ingredient  of  hope  and  diligence  and  all 
the  virtues  of  the  believer. 

The  great  crime  of  the  Protestant  church,  with  all  its  splen- 
did excellencies,  was  that  it  disturbed  the  Catholic  definition. 
The  Catholic  definition  of  faith  was  that  '■'■fides  forniata,'' 
or  faith  that  was  saving,  was  faith  that  was  "  infused  with  love." 
It   was    horrible    to    disturb  that   view.      The    Catholics  dis- 


CHAPTER  I. 


57 


turbed  it  by  imputing  to  faith  perfectness  and  supererogatory 
merit.  But  the  Protestants  disturbed  it  by  throwing  it  clean 
off  its  base.  We  have  destroyed  the  very  nature  of  faith. 
We  make  faith  a  cHnging  to  Christ  on  the  explanation 
of  His  plan.  We  make  holiness  a  consequence  of  believ- 
ing. Whereas  believing  is  holiness.  We  lose  all  sight 
of  Paul's  careful  sentence, — "  In  it  (viz.,  "  the  gospel  ")  the 
righteousness  of  God  is  revealed,"  and  "  revealed  out  of  (from) 
faith,"  faith  itself  being  the  thing  in  which  better  views  of 
holiness  for  the  first  appear  ;  "  revealed  (therefore)  out  of 
faith  unto  faith,"  faith  introspecting  itself  and  getting  in  itself 
its  first  new  enkindled  ideas  of  righteousness; — and  encourage 
a  murderer,  for  example,  to  get  a  knowledge  of  a  mere  saving 
plan  and  squarely  trust  it  ;  beating  down  his  better  thoughts 
that  penitence  must  come  at  the  very  beginning  ;  saying  noth- 
ing about  faith  as  itself  a  moral  illumination  ;  and  hence,  as 
Jeremy  Taylor  writes,  betraying  the  church  into  being  saved 
by  faith,  when  that  faith  is  so  bare  in  its  idea  that  betterment 
is  to  come  after  ;  exhibiting  the  baleful  model  of  believing  as 
a  trusting  in  an  explained  Christ,  with  holiness  as  the  effect  ; 
having  the  trust,  therefore,  and  sometimes  not  the  holiness  ; 
leaning  heavily  upon  Christ  with  only  clean  cut  views  of  His 
redemption,  and  never  getting  on  to  the  result  (since  we  are 
saved  before  it),  viz.,  the  actual  eye  for  a  thorough  revolution 
in  our  living. 

Faith,  therefore,  being  this  actual  eye,  and  standing  for 
that  vision  in  the  sinner  when  the  righteousness  of  God  has 
been  savingly  revealed,  is  the  very  salvation  itself,  and,  now,  the 
**  for  "  with  which  our  present  verse  begins,  ennobles  the  salva- 
tion by  showing  just  as  distinctly  the  difficulty  of  the  sinner  out 
of  which  the  salvation  by  faith  the  more  strikingly  appears. 
"The  wrath  of  God."  Not  his  resentment.  Sinfulness  in  God 
would  be  the  same  as  sinfulness  in  man  (i  Jo.  2:  8  ;  4:  16). 
Not  his  vindicatory  justice  in  the  sense  of  some  of  the  Reformed 
(Hodge,  C.  5,  §  12).  God  has  nothing  moral  primordially, 
save  (i)  benevolence  and  (2)  a  love  of  holiness.  To  put  revenge 
in  such  a  place  is  blasphemous  and  wicked.     God   hates  sin, 


58  ROMANS. 

and  unspeakably  loves  its  opposite.  This  is  the  primordial 
affection.  Vengeance  is  its  consequence.  Vengeance^  therefore, 
is  not  an  original  lust,  but  a  derivative  obligation.  Punish- 
ment is  a  constitutional  device,  and  God  necessarily  follows  it. 
But  he  hates  it  as  a  bitter  need  (Lam.  3:  33  ;  2  Pet.  3:  9). 
Moreover  he  does  not  hate  the  culprit  (Matt.  5 :  45).  He  hates 
him  as  we  are  enjoined  to^hate  him  (Ps.  139:  21)  ;  but  He  loves 
him  in  every  other  sense  (Jo.  3:  16).  And  '"'■  the  wrath 
of  God''  is  a  convenient  trope  for  saying  all  this  as  to  His  aw- 
ful administrations. 

''  The  wrath  of  God  is  revealed."  Not  like  His  righteousness 
at  all  (v.  17).  That  is  revealed  savingly.  ''  The  wrath  of  God 
is  revealed''  to  the  damned.  It  *'  is  revealed"  to  all  of  us.  It 
"  is  revealed"  not  ''from  faith  "  (v.  17),  but "  from  heaven  ;  " 
and  how  it  ''is  revealed"  Paul  tells  us  in  certain  other  verses 
(vs.  19,  20). 

But  now  he  is  engaged  upon  the  subjects  of  the  wrath. 
These  are  not  the  ungodly  and  the  unrighteous.  If  they 
were,  there  could  be  no  gospel.  Paul  is  about  to  utter  the 
most  distinctive  evangel.  "  Righteousness  "  is  a  thing  ''  r^- 
7^ealed"  iy.  I']).  It  is  revealed  in  the  shape  of  "/t?////."  When 
I  have  a  revelation  of  righteousness,  I  become  righteous,  by 
all  the  increase  of  the  moral  vision.  This  revelation  of  right- 
eousness is  made  to  faith.  And  as  faith  itself  is  a  vision,  it  is 
in  faith,  or,  as  Paul  expresses  it,  out  of  faith,  that  I  discern  the 
right.  The  righteousness  of  God,  therefore,  is  revealed  to 
faith  out  of  faith,  and  it  is  in  the  weak  beginnings  of  faith  that 
I  begin  my  heavenly  vision. 

Now  why  do  not  all  men  begin  it  ? 

It  is  in  expounding  this  that  Paul  shows  what  is  "ungodliness" 
or  what  that  "  ungodliness  "  is  on  which  "  the  wrath  of  God  " 
preeminently  descends. 

All  men  have  "//'/<'///."  Paul  is  about  to  show  where  they 
get  it  (vs.  19,  20).  Most  men  have  saving  "  truth."  "  Truth" 
is  a  wide  word.  The  "  truth  "  in  art  means  more  than  shape 
or  color,  for,  most  of  all,  it  means  beauty.  And  so  in  Christ 
men  have  all  measures  of  the  "  truth."     "  Truth  "  most  worth 


CHAPTER  I.  59 

the  name  is  precisely  that  "  righteousness  of  God''  which  is  re- 
vealed from  faith  to  faith.  As  a  man  can't  paint  divinely  till 
he  knows  that  "  truth  "  which  consists  in  beauty,  so  a  man 
can't  live  divinely  till  he  knows  that  ^^  truth  "  which  consists 
in  righteousness.  But  then  all  men  know  this  to  some  extent. 
Even  the  devils  have  a  decaying  character. 

Paul  recognizes  the  fact  that  this  knowledge  of  the  "  truth" 
urges  and  presses.  The  Quaker  and  his  "  inward  light"  un- 
doubtedly are  of  this  nature.  Paul  pictures  the  idea  of  truth- 
enough-to-convert-us.  Undoubtedly  he  favors  the  fact  of 
light  enough  for  every  one,  //  he  ivould  folloiu  it^  to  bring  him 
out  into  the  Kingdom  (v.  20),  and,  therefore,  his  lost  ones  are 
but  of  a  single  class,  viz.,  the  ungodly  and  unrighteous  among 
men,  "who  hold  back  the  truth  in  unrighteousness." 

Let  me  be  careful  with  all  this.  I  do  ncjt  mean  an  "  inward 
light "  that  would  save  a  man  without  the  Spirit  ;  I  mean  one 
that  would  save  a  man  if  he  would  follow  it.  No  man  7*:'/// fol- 
low it.  By  the  works  of  the  law,  that  is,  works  engendered  by 
any  form  of  "  trutli  "  left  simply  to  teach,  no  man  is  made  right- 
eous. He  would  be  made  righteous  if  he  would  obey  ;  but 
there  is  the  very  mischief.  Evil  has  the  upper  hand,  and 
drives  the  sinner  to  "  hold  hack''  the  truth  ;  and  that  is  the  only 
sort  of  impenitency  and  ruin. 

"  Hold  back."  Yia-kxtiv  never  means  to  ''hold"  (E.  V.),  that 
is,  in  the  New  Testament.  It  may  in  the  classics  ;  but,  scrip- 
turally,  it  always  conveys  an  intensity  of  meaning.  We  are 
commanded  to  "  hold  fast  that  which  is  good  "  (i  Thess.  5: 
21).  We-  hear  of  holding  hard  to  the  land  (Acts  27:  40),  of 
holding  \\\m.  hard  not  to  go  from  them  (Lu.  4:  42).  If  Kurex^tv 
meant  simply  io  possess  (E.  V.),  this  would  be  its  only  instance. 
They  that  buy  are  to  do  so  as  not  holding  hard  (r  Cor.  7:  30). 
They  are  to  hold  fast  the  traditions  (  i  Cor.  11:  2).  '*  As  hav- 
ing nothing,  and  yet  holding  all  things  hard  "  (2  Cor.  6:  10). 
The  Revisionists  are  right,  therefore,  in  translating  it  here 
as  holding  down  (Re.).  *'  The  truth  "  is  par  excellence  moral. 
as  where  Christ  appears  "full  of  grace  and  truth  "  (Jo.  8:  44; 
2   Cor.   4:  2).     The  devils,  even,    have   the   working    and  the 


6o  ROMANS. 

striving  of  the  "  truthr  Holdi?ig  back  that  "  truth  "  which  is 
ever  pushing  for  the  supremacy,  is  just  the  feature  of  impen- 
itency,  and  is  just  the  sin  and  the  curse  ''  upon  "which  "  the 
wrath  of  God  is  revealed." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  apostle  says  ''upon\kTrl).  The  trans- 
lators render  it  "  against "  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  and  they  may  appeal 
to  Homer  (II.  13:  101;  5:  590);  though  even  in  Homer  we  gain 
by  speaking  of  making  war  "  upon.''  In  Paul  every  syllable  is 
to  be  counted  in.  If  Paul  said  ''  agai?ist,"  the  view  would  be 
commonplace.  But  as  he  says  ''  upon,  "  we  are  led  to  connect 
the  sentence  with  all  the  rest  of  the  epistle.  "  Salvation  " 
(v.  16)  consists  in  ''  righteousness''  {y.  17),  and  it  consists  in 
having  it  "  revealed"  (ib.),  and  it  is  "  revealed"  in  the  embry- 
onic condition  of  believing  (ib.).  Damnation  consists  in 
wickedness  ;  in  pain,  to  be  sure,  additionally,  but  above  and 
aback  of  that,  in  wickedness.  Therefore  the  philosophic  text 
that  "  wrath  "  is  ''  upon  "  the  wickedness.  It  is  "  against  "  it 
as  well  ;  but,  more  than  that,  "  upon  "  it.  It  descends  in  that 
very  shape  ;  and  where  the  law  strikes  the  man,  may  be  emi- 
nently in  the  point  of  pain,  and  in  the  shape  of  torment,  but, 
far  above  this,  in  the  shape  also  of  sin.  Therefore  the  man  is 
''given  up,"  to  use  the  language  of  the  apostle  (vs.  26,  28),  or, 
to  express  it  as  above,  ''  The  ivrath  of  God  is  revealed  from 
heaven  upon,"  that  is  in  a  very  curse  upon  the  thing  itself, 
deepening  it  and  making  it  more  bitter,  for  the  very  crime  of 
holding  back  the  truth,  and  that  by  the  very  means  of  {zv)  the 
' '  unrighteousness. ' ' 

19,20.  "Because."  The  apostle  now  adds  two  verses  to 
show  that  they  ^^  hold"  the  truth,  and  then  twelve  verses  more 
to  show  that  they  ''hold"  it  "■  back": — 

19.  Because  that  which,  is  known  of  God  is  manifest  in 
them,  for  God  made  to  them  the  manifestation ;  20.  For  the 
unseen  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are 
deeply  seen,  being  perceived  by  the  things  that  are  made, 
even  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  so  that  they  are  with- 
out excuse. 

"  That  which  may  be  known  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  is  classical, 


CHAPTER  I.  6i 

and  might  sufficiently  answer,  but  it  is  ominous  of  what  is  best 
that  it  would  not  answer  in  any  other  of  the  fourteen  instances 
of  TO  yvuarbv  in  all  the  Testament.  There  is  a  vast  deal 
unknown.  If  Spencer  had  confined  himself  to  that,  he  would 
have  done  very  well.  Then  there  is  a  vast  deal  " /v/c^tiv/ y  " 
and  Paul  ennobles  that  when  he  calls  it  the  "  the  eternal  pow- 
er and  Godhead."  Recalls  these,  "unseen  things,"  and  so 
they  arc  ;  so  signally  so  that  a  man  like  Spencer  can  deny 
them.  In  other  words  God  is  silent  and  invisible,  so  that  an 
atheist,  without  visible  absurdity,  can  deny  any  such  being. 
And  yet  these  "  //f/str/i  t/iino^s  are  deeply  seen."  Paul,  to 
bring  out  the  paradox,  uses  the  same  o/;aw.  They  "  rt-^r 
deeply  seen,  being  perceived  by  the  things  that  are  made." 
Of  course  before  "the  creation  "  there  was  nothin^^  to  see. 
But,  after  the  creation,  that  is  "from"  or  after  "the  creation 
of  the  world,"  things  were  in  such  a  plight,  that  when  man 
came  (the  King  was  still  invisible  ;  everything  about  Him  per- 
sonally was  still  an  "  unseeti  thing,''  but)  He  was  to  be  known 
of  in  His  works.  We  were  so  constituted  as  that  we  must  have 
found  Him  out,  and,  therefore,  Paul  says.  He  was  manifested 
in  ourselves.  And,  choosing  attributes  that  are  bravely  com- 
prehensive, viz.,  His  "  power"  and  also  His  "  Godhead,"  and 
affixing  a  word  that  carries  them  back  to  everlasting,  he  says, 
what  is  very  expressive,  that  "  God  made  the  manifestation ; " 
that  is  to  say,  that  our  Creator  had  such  fidelity  as  that  He 
took  care  that  we  should  know  His  ^'eternal  Godhead.''  And 
Paul  could  say  this  without  risk  ;  for  the  Romans  need  but 
step  to  their  own  Pantheon,  to  see  how  the  knowledge  of  a 
God  was  to  be  found  all  over  the  earth. 

But  the  idea  is,  that  all  men,  thus  possessing  this  knowledge 
of  God,  were  choking  it,  and  keeping  it  do-u>n  (v.  i8)  all  the 
time.  And  he  develops  this  to  three  degrees  :  First,  they 
fought  it  off,  so  that  it  should  not  increase  and  save  them 
(v.  17)  ;  second,  they  fought  it  back,  so  that  it  should  decrease 
and  darken  (v.  21)  ;  and  third,  they  were  ''given  up,"  so  that 
they  should  fall  into  utter  folly  (v.  22),  and  into  utter  shame 
and  bestiality  of   living  (v.  24  etc.).     This  is  the  way  that  the 


62  ROMANS. 

apostle  illustrates  his  idea  that  the  entrance  of  moral  "  truth  " 
or  light  was  faith  and  righteousness  and  salvation  (vs.  i6,  17), 
and  that  the  keeping  back  of  moral  *'  truth "  was  that  which 
constituted  the  '^  wrath  of  God''  directly  '^  upon^''  and  in  the 
shape  of,  the  world's  "  unrighteousness.'''' 

21.  Because,  when  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  Him 
not  as  God,  nor  gave  thanks,  but  were  made  vain  in  their 
reasonings,  and  dark  as  to  their  senseless  heart.  22.  Assert- 
ing themselves  wise,  they  were  made  fools,  23.  and  changed 
the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  in  the  likeness  of  an 
image  of  corruptible  man,  and  of  birds,  and  of  four-footed 
beasts,  and  of  creeping  things. 

The  ^''because''  previously  (v.  19)  covered  only  their  knowl- 
edge, and  how  they  were  "  without  excuse"  because  "  they 
knewy  The  "because"  now  covers  their  use  of  knowledge, 
and  how  they  abused  it  and  kept  it  back.  One  idea  follows 
endlessly.  "  Salvation  "  is  life  (v.  16).  Life  is  "  righteousness  " 
{w.i']).^^  Righteousfiess''  is  '^  faith"  (vs.  16,  17),  at  least  the 
small  beginnings  of  it  in  the  regenerate  sinner.  Regeneration 
is  by  the  ^^ power  of  God"  (v.  16).  And  the  ^^ power  of  God" 
makes  such  a  favorite  instrument  of  ^^ the  gospel"  that  the 
apostle  calls  that  ''the  power  of  God"  And  the  thing  in  "  the 
gospel"  is  "  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God" 
(2  Cor.  4  :  6),  or,  as  the  apostle  expresses  it,  ''the  righteousness 
of  God"  (v.  17).  When  that  is  "  revealed"  y\z.,  God's  moral 
excellence,  the  man  becomes  morally  excellent.  Every  man 
understands  that  (even  God)  "  as  hethinketh  in  his  heart  so  is 
he  "  (see  Com.  Prov.  23  :  7).  Let  a  man  see  "  righteousness^'* 
and  he  is  "  righteous  ;  "  and  he  is  "  righteous  from  faith."  "  The 
righteousness  of  God  is  revealed  from  faith  to  faith."  That  is, 
"faith"  when  man  has  been  busy  seeking  God,  though  the 
driving  force  may  have  been  terror,  and  the  "faith  "  quite  the 
common  "faith  "  of  selfishness,  yet,  when  it  becomes  responded 
to  by  the  Almighty,  has  opened  into  its  very  bosom  a  revela- 
tion of  "  righteousness."  That  is,  a  man's  conscience  becomes 
quickened,  and  in  the  revelations  of  this  moral  eye  God 
reveals  Himself.  Hence  the  meaning  of  the  sentence,  "  The 
moral  excellence  of  God  is  revealed  from  faith."     Where  can  I 


CHAPTKR  I.  63 

resort  for  any  cognizance  of  excellence,  if  I  do  not  look  for  it 
in  upon  my  faith.  And  as  taste  in  a  man  is  that  which 
uncovers  beauty,  and  the  taste  of  a  man  must  resort,  in  order 
to  understand  beauty,  to  his  taste,  so  the  apostle  makes  the 
genesis  of  conversion  very  complete.  It  is  *'  the  power  of  GoU,"' 
in  the  grand  instrument  of  ^' the  gospel,''  making  the  central 
figure  of  ''  the  gospel,"  viz.,  God,  to  be  "revealed  "  in  HisdurtV- 
/enee — that  exee/Zem-e  "  revealed''  (in  the  very  act  of  prayer)  in 
the  very  bosom  of  the  praying  man's  "/(?////"  y  so  that  the 
common  faith  breaks  out  with  the  light  of  conscience,  and  so 
that  it  is  there  that  a  man  gets  his  view  of  righteousness, 
and  so,  in  his  very  ''faith,"  becomes  "  righteous,"  so  that  the 
revelation  "  to  faith  "  is  made  ''from  faith,"  and  the  "faith  " 
so  engendered  is  imputed  to  a  man  for  righteousness  (4:  22, 
24),  and  becomes  actual  righteousness  in  a  sense  that  shall  be 
complete  when  it  becomes  lost  in  sight  (2  Cor.  5:7),  and 
perfect   (i  Cor.  13  :  12)  in  the  kingdom  of  the  blessed.* 

So  much  for  the  one  side  of  the  apostolic  statement.  But 
they  "  that  are  contentious,  and  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but 
obey  unrighteousness,"  have  just  the  opposite  history.  The 
one  man  is  saved  in  his  very  faith  ;  the  other  man  is  damned 
in  his  very  sinfulness.  His  fault  is  that  he  "  heeps  back  the 
truth."  Therefore  he  is  cursed  in  this  very  shape  ;  the  truth 
is  darkened  to  him.  The  apostle  divides  his  reasoning.  First, 
there  is  the  possession  of  the  truth.  That  is  made  sure  in  the 
verses  that  have  gone  before  (vs.  19,  20).  "They  knew  God." 
Let  us  hope  the  aorists  may  be   noted.     He  was  not  a  some- 

*  The  whole  thing  is  stated  in  different  language  in  Second  Thessalonians 
(i  :  8)  : — "  Taking  vengeance  on  them  who  know  not  God."  What  is  there 
in  God  to  know  except  His  "  righteousness  ?"  Knowing  His  power  or  know- 
ing His  wisdom  would  not  save  us.  Knowing  His  spiritual  wisdom,  or 
knowing  His  moral  excellence,  is  what  we  achieve  in  being  converted.  And 
to  justify  Paul's  awful  threats  (vs.  8,  9)  against  so  helpless  a  thing  as  not 
knowing,  comes  the  explanatory  sequel — "and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  very  "  gospel,*'  according  to  Paul,  is  that  in 
which  "  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed."  And  the  crime  of  not  knowing 
Him  (2  Thess.  1:8)  is  signalized  by  the  wickedness  of  not  yielding  the 
least  to  the  simple  directions  of  the  gospel. 


64  ROMANS. 

thing  that  '•^  may  be  known''  (E.  V.  v.  19),  but  rd  yvwcrrdv /.  e. 
a  something  actually  "  ;;/<aj;///>j/. "  The  apostle  goes  further, 
and  says,  He  was  "  manifest  iftside  of  them  ;  "  and,  further,  that 
"  God  made  the  manifestation^  Then,  secondly,  that  this 
^'•manifestation^''  which  was  not  "  the  gospel^"  but,  as  Paul 
expresses  it,  ^^  from  heaven,"  and  which  '•'being  perceived  by  the 
things  that  were  made  "  was  no  less  a  truth  than  an  "  Eterfial" 
with  '•'•power  and  Godhead,"  they  stifled.  And  Paul  illustrates 
this  as  of  the  most  wilful  shape.  They  saw  plentifully  His 
gloriousness,  and  did  "  not  glorify  Him"  and  they  used  plenti- 
fully His  power,  and  did  not  thank  Him  ;  and  so  the  third  truth 
came  out,  that  what  truth  they  had  was  dazed.  They  "  were 
made  vain  in  their  reasonings,  and  dark  as  to  their  sense- 
less heart."  This  was  a  judicial  sentence.  ''Made  vain." 
Liddell  has  the  plausible  idea  that  fiaraLoo)  is  linked  with  the 
Italian  matto  and  the  English  mad  j  and  certainly  nd-atog 
in  its  six  instances  in  the  New  Testament,  would  give  its 
meaning  better  by  being  translated  C7^azy  than  translated 
"vain;"  but  in  all  the  classics  iia-rjv  especially,  and  some 
of  the  compounds,  seem  to  demand  the  sense  of  fictile  or 
to  no  effect.  "Dark."  We  adopt  this  reading  simply  for 
euphony.  The  literal  reading  is  "  their  foolish  (or  senseless, 
Re.)  heart  was  darkened"  (E.  V.).  "Asserting  themselves 
wise."  The  very  roar  of  some  great  metropolis  thun- 
ders this  out  upon  the  air.  It  is  a  singular  mixture, 
however  ;  for  the  mass  of  the  impenitent,  boldly  as  they  turn 
to  cavil,  will  admit  in  quiet  moments  their  own  foolishness. 
"  Changed."  It  is  important  to  notice  the  particle  "in."  It 
is  not  "  into  (E.  V.  and  Re.)  the  likeness  of  a  man,"  but  "  in 
the  likeness  of  a  man."  And  this  is  a  nice  description.  It  is 
repeated  in  the  twenty-fifth  verse.  If  I  charge  a  man  with 
making  an  "image  of  God  "  and  changing  "the  incorruptible 
God "/??^^  the  i??iage,  or  even  into  the  "  likeness  "  oi  "four- 
footed  beasts,"  he  will  repel  the  charge  with  indignation.  He 
viWX  tell  me  justly  that  he  does  no  such  thing.  And  the  second 
commandment  was  intended,  not  to  forbid  any  such  thing  as 
this,  but  just  that  which   the  man  will    confess,  viz.,  that   he 


CH AFTER  J.  65 

makes  a  certain  something  to  represent  God.  The  hideous  lit- 
tle idols  in  the  eye  of  a  Hindoo  are  not  God,  but  something 
that  stands  for  God  ;  and  indeed,  as  he  is  a  Pantheist,  in  his 
particular  case  they  are,  as  taken  at  random,  a  part  of  Him. 
All  idolaters  profess  in  their  more  learned  class  a  unitary 
Deity.  But  God  forbids  such  representations  ;  and  now  Paul 
gives  the  reason  for  it.  Men  change  the  truth  of  God  "  in  " 
the  false  thing  (v.  25)  ;  or,  as  it  is  expressed  here,  they  change 
**  t/ie  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God''  (not  " ////t?,"  for  scholars 
with  singular  unanimity  agree  that  \v  never  means  "  into" 
but)  '*  /'//  t/ic  likeness  of  the  image  "  (jf  such  degrading  objects, 
viz.,  ''  of  corruptible  man  and  of  birds  and  of  four-footed 
beasts  and  of  creeping  things."  That  is  to  say,  the  practical 
result  as  shown  in  history  is,  that  God  gets  "  changed'"  in  such 
representations  ;  and  as  "  the  image"  must  have  been  chosen 
for  some  sort  of  "  likeness"  they  change  God  "  /;/  "  that  '*  like- 
ness J  "  that  is,  they  are  "  made  vain  in  their  reasonings  "  from 
the  twist  given  by  such  a  representation. 

24.  Wherefore  also  God  gave  them  up  in  the  desires  of 
their  hearts  unto  the  uncleanness  of  having  their  bodies 
dishonored  between  themselves. 

"  Also."  A  very  nice  distinction  seems  made  by  the  position 
of  Kui.  It  belongs  to  "  wherefore."  For  the  same  great  reasons 
God  gave  over  their  "bodies"  (v.  24^  as  well  as  their  minds 
(v.  23).  It  does  not  mean  ''also  God"  (E.  V.)  ;  nor  are  we 
willing  to  see  it  obliterated  as  by  a  various  reading  (Re.)  ;  for 
the  MS.  testimony  is  not  sufficient.  It  is  needed  just  where  it  is. 
It  does  not  belong  to  ''  God,"  for  it  does  not  mean  that  "  God 
also  (E.  V.)  gave  up  their  bodies,''  when  they  themselves 
(v.  23)  had  given  up  their  minds.  The  giving  up  by  God  is 
of  the  whole,  and  from  the  very  beginning.  And  here  is  just 
the  time  to  announce  four  realities.  First,  a  man  saves  him- 
self. The  first  motions  of  a  change  are  by  the  man.  As  far 
back  as  conviction  the  first  cloud  of  seriousness  passes  over  a 
man's  own  spirit.  A  man  is  never  saved  till  he  "  stirs  up  him- 
self to  take  hold  on  God  "  (Is.  64  :  7).  It  is  vital  to  know 
this  ;    otherwise    men  may  trifle  according  to  the  prophet  by 


66  ROMANS. 

saying,  "  Let  Him  come  near  and  hasten  His  work  that  we  may- 
see  it  "(Is,  5  :  19).  Because,  secondly,  the  first  motion  of  a 
change  is  by  the  God.  God  saves  a  man  ;  and  saves  him  from 
the  very  beginning.  The  very  motions  that  are  most  our  own 
are  motions  of  the  Almighty.  There  is  no  difference  in  the 
periods.  God  begins  with  a  believer  at  the  bottom  of  his 
unbelief.  The  influences  are  upon  our  will  ;  and  therefore  it 
seems  as  much  our  will  at  one  stage  of  our  sanctification  as 
another.  If  the  gospel  is  the  power  of  God,  it  shows  itself  in 
mir  power  ;  and  if  it  proclaims  His  righteousness,  it  shows  itself 
in  our  righteousness.  And  if  we  give  God  thanks,  it  is  from  an 
outside  revelation  that  reveals  to  us  that  it  is  God  that  worketh 
in  us,  even  when  we  are  conscious  that  we  are  working  out  our 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling.  This  is  the  reality  on 
the  one  page  of  the  apostle.  Now  on  the  other  it  is  exactly 
the  same  in  regard  to  sin.  It  is  always  our  sin.  For,  thirdly, 
it  is  not  true  that  we  first  sin  wilfully,  and  then  God  gives  us  up 
so  that  it  is  less  our  agency  than  it  was  before  ;  for,  fourthly,  He 
gives  us  up  from  the  very  beginning.  All  these  puzzles  are 
due  to  the  fact  of  the  nature  of  the  will.  "  God  gave  them  up 
in  the  desires  of  their  hearts."  We  are  not  to  say,  "  I  can 
begin  the  work  of  reading  and  prayer,  but  when  the  gracious 
moment  comes  God  must  act ;  "  or,  ''  I  can  begin  to  trifle  and 
reject,  but  when  the  judicial  moment  comes,  it  is  God  that 
gives  me  over."  It  is  God  that  gives  me  over  from  the  very 
first.  He  must  rule  me  from  the  very  beginning  of  my  history. 
There  is  never  a  moment  but  I  must  act  myself  ;  and  never  a 
moment  in  which  I  am  not  acted  in  by  the  God  that  made 
me.  "  III  tJic  desires r  This  is  the  key  to  the  whole  paradox. 
In  either  damning  or  saving  God  acts  in  and  with  our 
''desires."  "  The  uncleanness  of  having."  It  might  be  read, 
''  unto  uncleafiness  so  as  to  Jiave.^'  But  the  infinitive  rather  has  a 
right  to  be  governed  if  there  be  a  proximate  noun.  "  To  dis- 
honor "  (E.  V.)  will  not  answer  ;  for  there  is  no  instance  of  a 
middle  in  armd^^u)^  and  the  passive  capitally  expresses  all  that 
could  be  desired. 


CHAPTER  I. 


67 


25.  As  being  men  who  changed  the  truth  of  God  in  the 
false,  and  worshiped  and  served  the  creature  rather  than 
the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  forever  more.    Amen. 

Not  "2i'//^"  (E.  v.),  for  the  o^r/ifT  means  more  than  that. 
In  the  sixteenth  chapter  it  is  three  times  repeated.  *'  Salute 
Mary"  (not  ''wJio;'  E.  V.,  but)  "as  one  who  "  bestowed  much 
labor  on  us  (v.  6).  It  gives  the  reason  for  the  special  saluta- 
tion. "  Salute  the  beloved  Persis  as  one  who  labored  much  in 
the  Lord  "  (v.  12).  And  again  "  salute  Andronicus  and  Junia 
as  being  people  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostles  "  (v.  7). 
By  the  use  of  this  pronoun  Paul  terminates  the  passage  by 
summing  up  the  specific  charge  against  the  impenitent. 

"  Who  changed,"  The  idea  is  again  presented  of  changing 
not  "////^"  (E.  v.),  or  ">r"  (Re.),  but  changing  "  in." 
They  "  changed  the  truth  of  God  in  the  false."  Indulging 
in  idolatry,  which  used  images  of  God  not  truly  descriptive  of 
Him,  they  colored  God  in  the  picture.  "  The  truth  of  God;' 
which  really  included  his  ''righteousness''  (v.  17),  they  got 
all  besmirched.  And  changing  the  true  ''  ///  the  false;'  they  lost 
God  in  the  very  pretence  of  worship.  And,  sliding  from  the 
one  to  the  other,  they  "worshiped  and  served  the  creature 
rather  than  the  Creator."  Paul's  holy  horror  at  which  breaks 
out  in  the  doxology,  "  Who  is  blessed  forever  more." 

26.  Wherefore,  God  gave  them  up  unto  dishonoring  pas- 
sions ;  for  their  females  changed  the  natural  use  into  that 
which  was  aside  from  nature.  27.  In  like  manner,  also, 
the  males,  leaving  the  natural  use  of  the  female,  were 
inflamed  in  their  lust  for  each  other,  males  with  males, 
accomplishing  shame,  and  bearing  away  in  themselves  the 
due  reward  of  their  error. 

"Wherefore."  This  word  confirms  the  view  just  given. 
"  God  gave  them  up,"  in  no  way  to  destroy  their  responsi- 
bility.  It  is  in  man's  "  desires  "  that  the  mischief  works  ;  and 
as  long  as  it  is  ''desire  "  that  "  hath  conceived  "  (Ja.  i  :  15), 
the  prou^eny  must  be  "  sin."  There  is  no  difference  in  man's 
acts  as  to  their  voluntariness,  from  the  first  dawning  of 
accountable  being.  "  Vi/e  affections"  (E.  V.).  Literally, 
"passions  of  dishonor."     In   more  perspicuous  English,  "dis- 


68  ROMANS. 

honoring  passions."  "Females."  That  is  the  Greek,  and  Paul 
may  have  shrunk  from  the  nobler  epithet  of  "  women " 
(E.  V.  and  Re.).  "  For  their /^;;z^/^j. "  Not  ''for  even  (E.  V.) 
their  females  r  Te  never  means  that.  It  might  mean  ''for, 
for  example,  their  fejuales,''  or  "for,  on  the  one  hand,  their 
females,  "  (and  there  is  another  re  to  keep  up  the  balance  in 
the  following  sentence).  But  re  is  not  strong  enough  as  a 
copulative  to  make  much  notice  of  it  necessary.  We  mention 
it  at  all  because  "even''  (E.  V.)  is  an  unhappy  expression. 
"  Fejnales  "  were  not  so  sacred  that  an  Eastern  pen  would  be 
apt  to  say  "  even''  in  exposing  horrible  iniquity.  "Into  that." 
Please  observe  that  when  Paul  really  means  exchange  or  change 
ifito,  t\q  is  the  word,  and  not  tv  as  in  those  previous  verses 
(vs.  23,  25).     "  Aside  from."     This  is  the  meaning  of  Trapd. 

28.  And  as  it  was  not  their  judgment  to  keep  God 
under  close  acquaintance,  God  gave  them  up  to  a  mind 
without  judgment,  to  do  things  not  fit. 

Our  authorized  version  reads  "  as  they  did  not  like."  We  can 
say  with  great  boldness  6oKLiia^u)  never  means  to  "  like " 
(E,  V.)  ;  and,  putting  the  negative  to  it,  it  cannot  be  rendered 
"refuse"  (Re.).  It  has  an  undetermined  derivation,  but,  by 
its  usage  simply,  its  meaning  can  be  sufficiently  identified. 
Of  its  twenty-three  instances  in  the  New  Testament,  King 
James  gives  eight  renderings,  and  the  Revisers  four  ;  but  the 
wo^d  judge,  if  we  take  it,  not  in  the  sense  of  a  court,  but  in 
the  sense  of  making  an  estimate,  might  admirably  fill  the 
place  of  every  one  of  them. 

"  Without  judgment."  The  word  a66Ki^oq  occurs  eight 
times  in  the  whole  Testament,  and  King  James  translates  it 
with  three  words,  and  the  Revisers  with  two  ;  but  in  neither 
version  is  the  wordy//^4''^'  or  without  fudg??ient  di'^^YiQ^.  either  to 
verb  or  adjective.  We  hesitate  therefore.  And  yet  even  one 
passage  in  the  Testament  makes  very  awkward  this  steady 
omission  of  the  commoner  meaning  of  the  word.  "  Prove 
{^oKifid^ETe)  your  own  selves;  or  know  ye  not  your  own  selves, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you  ?  unless  indeed  ye  be  reprobate 
(addKi/ioi).      But    I  hope  that  ye  shall  know  that  we  are  not 


CJIAPTER  J.  69 

reprobate  (add/a/^oi) .  Now  we  pray  to  God  that  ye  do  no 
evil ;  not  that  we  may  appear  approved  {jS6Ki}iOL)y  but  that 
ye  may  do  that  which  is  honorable,  though  we  be  as 
reprobate  (ddo/c^/iof)"  (E.  V.  2  Cor.  13  :  5-7).  Show  an 
atom  there  of  consistent  sense  !  What  has  Paul's  being 
a  "  reprobate "  to  do  with  what  he  was  saying  ?  But 
substitute  the  word  ji/i/^e  and  judgment,  and  every  thing 
comes  into  place.  "  Try  your  own  selves  whether  ye  be  in 
the  faith  ;  judge  your  own  selves.  Know  ye  not  your  own 
selves  how  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you — unless  indeed  ye  be 
without  judgment.  But  I  trust  that  ye  will  know  that  we  are 
not  without  judgment.  And  I  pray  God  that  ye  do  no  evil  ; 
not  that  we  may  appear  as  having  judgment,  but  that  you  may 
do  nobly,  though  we  be  as  without  judgment."  And  we  might 
take  other  instances.  "  Men  corrupted  in  mind,  without  judg- 
ment (reprobate  E.  V.)  concerning  the  faith  "  (2  Tim.  3  :  8). 
"As  to  every  good  work  void  of  judgment"  (Titus  i  :  16). 
Not  that  we  need  insist  that  the  words  can  not  be  more 
idiomatic  ;  but  only  that  to  judge  and  to  be  without  judgment  are 
the  sufficient  meaning,  and  that  those  are  the  words  which 
most  often  prevent  an  entangling  or  discordant  interpreta- 
tion. 

"  Close  acquaintance,'*  [kiTiyv(:)Giq).  Notice  the  ettI.  It  creates 
a  meaning  stronger  than  }T^w<Tfc.  "As  it  was  not  their  judg- 
ment;" that  is,  since  they  made  no  such  estimate  as  that  they 
should  "keep  God  under  close  acquaintance."  God  did 
what  has  been  repeatedly  described  ;  that  is,  to  those  who 
sought  this  t-r/vwff/c,  and  urged  a  prayer  for  it,  his  righteousness 
was  revealed  (v.  17)  ;  but  in  those  who  made  no  such  prac- 
tical ^^ Judgment,''  what  ''Judgment''  they  had  was  darkened. 

29.  Being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  maliciousness  ; 
full  of  envy,  murder,  strife,  deceit,  malignity,  whisperers, 
30.  Accusers ;  hated  of  God,  insolent,  haughty,  boastful, 
inventors  of  evil  things,  disobedient  to  parents,  31.  With- 
out understanding,  covenant  breakers,  without  natural 
affection,  unmerciful;  32.  Being  such  persons  as  that 
when  they  had  close  acquaintance  with  God's  manner  of 
making  matters  right,  since  they  who  practice  such  things 


70  ROMANS. 

are  worthy  of  death,  not  only  do  the  things,  but  have  a 
complacency  with  those  who  practice  them. 

"Full."  Different  Greek  from  "filled."  Stuffed  ox  gorged 
would  be  the  figure  literally,  the  adjective  being  from  the  verb 
to  eat.  "  As  persons  who."  The  apostle  sums  up  at  convenient 
intervals  by  this  word  oirLvtq  (see  v.  25).  In  each  case  it 
covers  the  cream  of  their  iniquity.  "  Close  acquaintance  ; " 
again  the  word  e-iyv6aig  (see  v.  28).  "Making right."  We 
will  waive  our  comment  upon  this  till  the  next  chapter 
(vs.  13,  26).  It  is  a  very  important  word.  It  is  not  God  who 
makes  these  things  "worthy  of  death."  They  are  so  in 
themselves.  Therefore  "  since  "  is  the  meaning  of  bn,  not 
''  t/iat"  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  "God's  mannner  0/  making  things 
right "  is,  to  give  men  what  they  deserve,  not  to  create  the 
feature  of  ill-desert.  *'  When  they  had  a  close  acquaintance.'' 
How  real  this  is,  can  be  seen  in  bloody  sacrifices.  The  lost 
have  more  thought  of  terror  sometimes  than  the  saved. 
Nevertheless,  with  this'  agony  upon  them,  they  not  only  com- 
mit atrocities,  but,  what  is  strangest  of  all  {awzv^oKovaLv)^ 
have  a  sort  of  "  complacency  "  in  them,  along  "  with  those 
who  practice  them." 


CHAPTER  II. 

1.  Wherefore  thou  art  inexcusable,  O  man,  whosoever 
thou  art  who  judgest,  for  wherein  thou  judgest  another, 
thou  condemnest  thyself;  for  thou  that  judgest  practicest 
the  same  things  ;  2.  And  we  know  that  the  judgment  of 
God  is  according  to  truth  upon  them  who  practice  such 
things. 

"Whosoever."  A  most  inexplicable  criticism  has  been 
always  making  the  first  chapter  an  address  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  the  second  to  the  Jews.  It  ruins  every  thing.  In  the  first 
place  there  is  not  a  tittle  of  text  for  it.  From  the  very  begin- 
ning Paul  addresses  Romans,  and,  as  a  class  among  the 
Romans,  converted  people  or  saints.  Jews  and  Gentiles  being 
both   at  Rome,  and  both  among  the  converts,  he  addresses 


CHAPTER  II.  71 

both  of  them  ;  and,  in  fact,  makes  no  discrimination,  except 
that  he  uses  both  to  illustrate  his  doctrine.  In  the  first  chapter 
he  is  describing,  not  Gentiles,  but  men,  in  the  result,  under  the 
righteous  judgment  of  heaven,  of  keeping  '^  back  the  truth  in 
loirighteousness'^  (v.  18).  This  was  not  the  result  to  one  class 
only,  except  as  they  had  sinned  more  or  longer  in  keeping 
back  the  truth.  Hut  Pompeii  shows  in  that  very  age  that  it 
was  the  result  to  Oentiles,  and  the  prophets  showed  that  it  was 
the  result  to  Jews  (Ps.  146:53;  Is.  i :  4,9,  21-23).  Paul 
sketches  all  impenitence,  and  paints,  what  he  would  not  charge 
upon  all,  but  what  all  are  on  the  highway  to,  sooner  or  later. 
He  shows  the  gospel  as  a  means  of  opening  afresh  the  moral 
eye,  and  sin  as  a  means  of  closing  it ;  and  of  closing  it  more 
and  more  till  it  darkens  into  inexpressible  transgression. 
That  is  his  sole  object.  And  in  the  second  chapter  he  varies 
it  by  showing  that  wakefulness  in  condemning  others,  en- 
hanced rather  than  mitigated  ini([uity.  His  teaching  here  is 
signal.  He  does  not  say,  "Thou  who  judgest  another,"  if 
thou  "practisest  the  same  things,  condemnest  thyself." 
That  of  course.  Just  here  in  the  epistle  we  must  prepare 
ourselves  for  profounder  depths.  His  doctrine  is  much 
stronger.  His  burden  Is  that  the  gospel  Is  the  power  of  God 
for  revealing  moral  excellence  to  men,  that.  In  that  moral  light, 
they  also  may  look  and  live.  He  holds  this  forth  as  that 
which  must  be  the  life  of  all  men.  If,  therefore,  a  man  refuses 
this,  but  still  Insists  upon  being  a  judge  of  others,  Paul  does 
not  say  that  then.  If  he  commits  the  same  things  he  condemns 
himself,  but,  much  more  signally,  that  he  will  commit  the  same 
things ;  that  sin  Is  the  same  pest  everywhere  ;  that  Its  deep 
reaches  are  the  same  ;  that  Its  helplessness  and  incessant 
growth  are  universal  ;  and  that  if  a  man  imagines  himself  clean 
when  he  Is  unclean,  he  parts  with  still  more  of  his  excuse, 
and  adds  another  to  the  score  of  his  iniquity.  We  do  not 
deny  that  Paul  might  have  been  thinking  of  Jews.  Doubtless 
he  was  ;  and  in  the  seventeenth  verse  he  actually  uses  them 
for  illustration.  We  do  not  question  but  that  he  may  picture 
his  worst  Sodomitlc  practices  from  the  heathen.     If  he  did  not. 


72  ROMANS. 

he  was  forgetting  that  heathenism  was  farther  on  toward 
damnation  than  what,  till  lately,  had  been  the  only  religion  in 
the  world,  viz.,  Judaism,  We  only  say  that  Paul,  speaking  to 
Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles  (see  v.  7  ;  2:9,  10),  did  not  specialize 
his  drift,  but  used  the  one  as  well  as  the  other  for  illustrating 
the  consequences  of  keeping  back  the  truth  in  tinrighteousiicss. 

"  According  to  truth."  This  of  course  merges  all  into  one 
grand  theatre  of  inspection.  "  According  to  thy  fear  so  is  thy 
wrath  "  (Ps.  90  :  11).  Show  me  exactly  God's  ''/>^r,"  that  is, 
how  much  He  is  to  be  loved,  and  then  show  me  exactly  how 
far  I  have  departed  from  this  standard  of  "/;7////,"  and  I  will 
measure  to  the  last  ounce  the  weight  upon  me  of  the  wrath  of 
the  Almighty.*  A  neighboring  text  does  indeed  say  "  <?/ //^^ 
Jew  fiist "  (v.  9),  but  that  is  only  because  the  Jew  is  the  more 
responsible.  Show  me  the  heart  of  a  man,  and  I  do  not  care 
for  his  hue,  or  his  blood,  or  in  what  form  he  bends  his  knee, 
or  in  what  tongue  he  utters  wisdom.  Those  are  terrible 
texts  :  "  According  to  thy  fear  "  (Ps.  90  :  1 1),  and  "  according 
to  truths 

''Against''  (E.  V.  and  Re.).  Better  say  "upon"  (£7r/.)  God 
pities  the  condemned,  and  will  say,  "  Friend"  (Matt.  22  :  12), 
and  "  Son  "  (Lu.  16  :  25)  in  the  very  act  of  inflicting  ven- 
geance. 

3.  But  canst  thou  be  calculating  upon  this,  O  man  who 
judgest  those  who  practise  such  things  and  doest  the  same, 
that  thou  mayest  escape  the  judgment  of  God?  4.  Or 
despisest  thou  the  riches  of  His  goodness  and  forbearance 
and  long  suffering,  not  knowing  that  it  is  the  goodness  of 
God  that  is  to  lead  thee  to  repentance  ? 


*  This  point  is  finely  illustrated  in  Prov.  15  :  ii  (see  author's  Com.  on 
Prov.)  :  "  Hell  and  destruction  are  before  the  Lord,  because  also  the  hearts 
of  the  children  of  men. "  That  is,  hell  will  be  measured  in  its  severity  by  the 
heart  in  its  corruption.  The  sinner  who  leaves  the  world  with  a  certain  meas- 
ure of  sin,  will  begin  his  perdition  with  pain  and  sin  of  a  corresponding  grade. 
No  feature  of  this  is  lightened  because  the  word  is  "  Sheol."  The  grave 
means  Hell  just  as  fittingly  and  just  as  often  as  death  means  ruin.  They  are 
corresponding  physical  emblems  for  eternal  giving  up  to  sin.  (Prov.  5:5; 
7  :  27  ;  9  :  18  ;   15  :  24  ;  see  Com.  Prov.). 


CHAPTER  II.  73 

"Canst."  The  subjunctive  certainly  (see  also  "  may  est" 
below)  should  have  some  distinctness.  In  Matt.  23  :  t^Z^  the 
E.  V.  translates  the  similar  part  of  the  verb,  "  How  can  ye 
escape  the  damnation  of  hell  ?  "  This  will  become  very  impor- 
tant in  the  ninth  chapter  (v.  15). 

*' Judgest."  This  (see  also  v.  i)  is/c/m^,  like  a  "judgment" 
in  court,  nut  (JoK7^d;w,  to  make  an  estimate  of,  as  in  the  last 
chapter  (v.  28). 

"Despisest."  Man,  looking  upon  Christ,  and  seeing  the 
enormous  sacrifice  that  God's  "goodness  "  is  making  to  save 
even  a  remnant,  and  then  "calculating"  that  in  some  indif- 
ferent way  he  may  "escape,"  docs  most  insolently  despise  the 
"forbearance"  and  "  longsuflfering  "  and  the  terrible  expe- 
dient of  God  in  the  ransom  of  our  spirits.  Where  God  is  "  cal- 
culating'' ^o  closely,  what  an  infamy  for  men  to  be  '^calcu- 
lating'' to  run  the  venture  ! 

"Not  knowing."  If  we  could  mix  the  idea  of  not  consider- 
ing also,  we  would  cover  the  Greek.  "  That  it  is  the  good- 
ness of  God."  That  is,  of  this  grandly  pains-taking  awfully 
soul-coveting  Redeemer.  "  That  is  to  lead  thee  to  repen- 
tance." This  not  simply  ends  the  idea,  but  adds  to  it.  Luther, 
splendid  as  was  his  service,  did  no  little  damage.  If  we  open 
a  Catholic  book  this  sentence  would  be  largely  emphasized. 
If  we  open  a  Protestant  book  it  is  almost  ignored.  It  is  more 
striking  below.  The  text,  **  every  man  according  to  his  deeds  " 
(v.  6)  Protestants  hardly  notice.  So,  deeper  still,  ''■  by  patient 
continuance  in  well  doing"  (v.  7),  or  the  sentence  that  follows, 
*'  To  e:'ery  man  that  7vorketh  good"  (v.  10)  ;  and  then  more 
particularly  the  summing  up,  "  For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law 
are  righteous  before  God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  nuide 
righteous"  (v.  13).  These  are  not  Protestant  sentences;  and 
the  Romanists,  in  their  ''perfect "  righteousness,  destroy  them 
as  Catholic  sentences.  Let  us  be  very  careful  as  they  occur 
in  place.  They  all  blend  in  the  apostolic  gospel.  We  are 
already  getting  the  key.  Salvation  is  a  giving  of  life  to 
a  man  by  revealing  to  him  in  the  gospel  by  the  power  of  God 
the  moral  excellence  of  God,  so  that  the  man  himself,  through 


74  ROMANS. 

that  moral  vision,  becomes  personally  a  better  man  (Rom.  i  : 
i6,  17),  which  is  the  apostle's  own  hermeneutic  for  his  teaching 
that  "  The  goodness  of  God  is  that  which  is  to  lead  thee  to 
repentance.'' 

5.  But  through  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart 
treasurest  for  thyself  wrath  in  a  day  of  wrath,  and  of  a 
revelation  of  a  righteous  judgment  of  God  ? 

This  is  the  rest  of  the  question.  "Through;"  a  meaning 
for  Kara  that  is  remarked  upon  earlier:  ^'through  flesh j'' 
^^  through  a  spirit  of  holiness"  (Rom.  i  :  3,  4). 

"  Hardness  "  is  that  by  which  a  man  ''  keeps  back  the  truth  " 
(i  :  18)  and  therefore  salvation.  But,  failing  of  life,  he 
accumulates  death,  that  is,  adds  to  it.  "Treasurest" — coin 
by  coin  of  penalty.  "In  a  day  of  wrath."  There  is  much 
significance  in  this  word  "///."  ^^ Against''  (E.  V.}  is 
not  the  preposition.  Moreover  the  want  of  the  article 
has  its  significance.  It  is  not  the  ^'  day  of  wrath  ; "  else 
all  the  commentators  might  be  right  in  saying  that  it  was 
the  "  judgment."  "  The  great  day  of  His  wrath  "  is  of  the 
Apocalypse  (Rev.  6  :  17),  though  even  there  it  does  not  mean 
the  last  day.  The  apostle  has  been  speaking  of  ''  wrath " 
being  ^^  revealed"  (i  :  18),  and  of  the  bad  man's  knowing  this 
very  thing,  "  a  righteous  judgment  of  God  "  (i  :  32)  ;  and 
of  this  "revelation"  and  of  this  knowing  making  him  specially 
inexcusable  {ib.  v.  20),  and  becoming  a  great  occasion  of  his 
being  given  up  {ib.  vs.  24,  28).  And  now,  undoubtedly,  the 
apostle  is  returning  to  this  thought,  and  means  to-day  as  the 
'■^  day  of  revelation  y  "  i.  e.  fixes  upon  now  as  of  all  others  the 
time  when  the  anger,  being  despised,  is  treasuring  itself  up  in 
the  transgressor. 

6.  Who  will  render  to  every  one  according  to  his 
works. 

"Render."  Not  necessarily  give  back  (see  Lu.  4:  20),  or 
recompense  (12:17).  If  that  idea  enters,  it  must  be  from  the 
context,  and  not  from  the  preposition  cnro.  If  we  were  to 
translate /card  " ////'^//if/^  "  (as   in  i  :  3,  4),   we  would  not  go  far 


CHAPTER  II.  75 

from  the  sense.  If  a  man  sins,  Ood  };ivcs  him  his  sinfulness  as. 
his  most  horrible  perdition.  If  a  man  believes,  God  endows 
him  with  his  faith,  nursed  and  furthered  into  sight.  In  either 
case  he  rewards  him  'V/r-'w/i,'-/^  his  works." 

But  as  Kara  oftenest  means  "  according  to,"  let  us  give  a 
wider  significance  to  our  comment.  There  are  two  species  of 
award  :  one  to  the  lost,  and  that  we  have  already  explained. 
There  is  a  recompensing  to  every  man  •'  according  to  his  tvorks." 
If  there  be  any  riddle,  it  must  be  on  the  salvation  side  in  the 
judgment.  And  yet  how  will  it  be  with  the  saved  ?  Certainly, 
in  a  grave  sense,  according  to  their  works.  If  I  die  good,  I 
will  be  admitted  into  heaven.  If  you  die  better,  you  will  be 
admitted  higher.  I  need  not  break  up  the  question,  and 
expound  how  a  man's  ''  works  "  indicate  his  character,  or  go 
further  and  show  that  the  sum  of  his  ''works"  form  his 
character  :  all  this  is  understood.  It  is  mere  altering  of  the 
rhetoric,  too,  that  all  character  must  be  of  record,  and  that 
every  act  that  shapes  it  must  pass  into  the  account.  All  this 
is  obvious.  But  then  the  real  question.  What  do  I  mean  by 
character  ?  brings  up  the  solecism  at  once.  When  I  speak 
even  of  Paul's  character,  I  mean  bad  character.  When  I  speak 
of  any  saintly  works,  I  mean  evil  works.  How  reward  me  if 
every  imagination  and  thought  of  mine  is  only  evil,  and  that 
continually  ?  Let  us  draw  close  to  the  apostle.  With  the 
finally  lost  man,  judgment  will  be  simple.  "  Every  trans- 
gression and  disobedience  shall  receive  a  just  recompense  of 
reward  "  (Heb.  2  :  2).  But  with  the  saved  man  it  will  be 
peculiar  rfnd  gracious.  Some  saved  men  have  had  more  sins 
than  some  lost  men.  And  how  could  heaven  be  according  to 
our  works,  when  our  works  have  been  shameful,  and  nothing 
but  sin  has  marked  our  acceptance  with  the  Father  ?  The  key 
is  a  mode  of  speaking  which  is  rife  in  our  present  epistle.  A 
man  is  "  righteous"  when  he  is  less  sinful.  The  clue  is  found 
in  the  facts.  A  man  is  pardoned  when  he  is  touched  with 
grace  ;  and  grace  is  of  this  very  nature  :  it  is  amendatory,  but 
not  perfect.  The  sinner  is  always  worse  ;  the  christian  is 
always  better.     The  better  man  is  the  righteous  man  in  Bible 


76  ROMANS. 

language.  "Wherefore,  holy  brethren"  (Heb.  3  :  i),  is  an 
address,  not  to  the  holy,  but  to  the  sinful.  It  is  in  the  measure 
in  which  they  are  less  sinful  that  they  are  called  holy.  And  as 
each  act  that  is  less  sinful,  makes  the  sinful  saint  by  promise 
better,  that  tells  the  whole  story.  God  keeps  his  books  prac- 
tically upon  our  hearts  ;  and  our  acts,  though  sinful  each  one, 
if  they  be  less  sinful,  are  kept  as  our  account ;  and  we  shall  be 
rewarded  thus  intelligibly  "  according  to  (our)  works ^ 

Rewardableness,  which  the  scriptures  undoubtedly  speak  of 
(Mar.  9  141  ;  I  Cor.  3:8;  Heb.  11:6;  Rev.  11  :  18  ;  22  :  12),  the 
Romanists  have  treated  under  the  name  of  '';;z^;7/,"  laboring 
to  efface  the  mischief  by  two  sorts  of  merit,  one  like  the  guilt 
of  the  wicked  strictly  according  to  law,  or,  as  of  Adam,  should 
he  have  continued  innocent,  and  the  other,  7iot  of  condignity, 
as  they  call  this,  but  of  congruity,  that  is  grace  of  the  Almighty 
leading  to  a  certain  measure  of  "  works,''  and  regulating 
thereby,  as  what  He  calls  a  "  reward  "  (Matt.  5  :  12),  the  dis- 
tinctions of  glory  in  that  world  that  we  are  to  meet  hereafter. 

The  misery  of  the  Catholic  is  that  he  confounds  the  two,  and 
makes  the  merit  of  the  saint  too  dangerously  perfect. 

7.  To  those  who  through  patience  in  well  doing  seek  for 
glory  and  honor  and  ineorruption,  eternal  life. 

"Through;"  not  ''  according  to"  or  ''by''  (E.  V.  and  Re., 
see  I  :  3,  4).  "Patience;"  the  only  virtue  that  actually 
pledges  pardon.  Christ  says  that  it  gets  possession  for  us  of 
our  souls  ;  for  that  is  His  language,  "  In  your  patience  get 
possession  of  your  souls"  (Lu.  21  :  19).  ''Ye  have  need  of 
patience,  that,  having  done  the  will  of  God,  ye  may  receive  the 
promise"  (Heb.  10  136).  Unless  we  are  confirmed  {cT-npli^iS) 
by  perseverance  (Acts  16  :  5  ;  i  Thess.  3  :  13),  there  is  no 
promise,  after  conversion,  that  we  may  not  fall  (Heb.  6  :  4  etc.; 
10  :  26-38).  The  verb  that  answers  to  viroiiovi]  (patience), 
is  employed  in  the  only  promise  : — ''  He  that  endureth 
{vTTOfiho))  to  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved  "  (Matt.  10  : 
22).  "Ineorruption;"  not  ''immortality"  (E.  V.).  Adam 
and  Lucifer  had  neither  of  them  "  ineorruption,"  even  when 
they  were  perfectly  holy  :    nor  have  we,   for  we  may  possibly 


CHAPTER  II.  77 

fall  ;  but,  "  through  patience  in  well-doing,''  we  may  ''  seek  for  " 
it,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  we  may  attain  it,  even  in  the 
present  life. 

8.  But  to  them  who  are  selfishly  in  opposition,  and  do  not 
obey  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  anger  and  wrath, 
9.  Distress  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  works 
evil,  both  of  the  Jew  first,  and  also  of  the  Greek. 
•"Selfishly  in  opposition."  Not  from  tpig  strife,  but  from 
epideiu,  to  hire  out,  to  act  the  hireling.  It  came  then  to  mean 
to  be  mercenary,  and,  fmally,  to  be  of  a  party :  the  implication 
being  that  it  was  for  gain,  or  at  least  for  selfish  opinion's  sake. 
'E^fC  is  twice  used  in  the  same  text  with  ti)Stia  (2  Cor. 
1 2  :  20  ;  Gal.  5 :  20).  "  Do  not  obey  the  truth ;  *'  rather  keep 
it  back  as  we  have  seen  (Rom.  i  :  18).  But  obey  unrighteous- 
ness ;  how  singularly  real  !  Men  impatient  of  Christ,  will 
absolutely  slave  for  Satan.  "  Truth;'  endlessly  cavilled  at, 
might  look  with  envy  at  the  weight  which  the  sceptic  will  give 
to  errors.  "Jew  first;"  most  righteously,  for  being  most 
responsible  for  wickedness. 

10.  But  glory  and  honor  and  peace  to  every  one  who 
works  good,  both  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek  ; 
11.  For  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God. 

11.  "For."  This  is  rather  an  odd  sequel  for  the  expression 
"  to  the  Jew  first."  "  No  respect,  etc.,"  because,  "  to  the 
Jeiv  first!''  The  remedy  is  to  hold  the  ''for  "  as  belonging 
to  the  whole  sentence.  '' JVo  respect  etc.,"  because,  indis- 
criminately of  race,  there  is  "glory  and  honor  and  peace  to 
every  one  who  works  good."  Ikit  then,  on  this  very  rule, 
''to  the  Jeii)  first,"  because,  while  ''indignation  and  wrath  (shall 
be)  to  the  J e7u first,"  because  "he  that  kneic  shall  be  beaten 
with  many  stripes  "  (Lu.  12  :  47),  so  "glory  "  shall  be  "to  the 
Jew  first"  because  what  is  hereditary  in  faithfulness  breeds 
the  strongest  christians.  Bible  readers  will  be  "first"  in  hell, 
but,  in  reward  of  faithfulness,  "first "  in  heaven.  Bushmen 
lost  will  be  beaten  with  few  stripes  ;  but  Bushmen  saved, 
tantis  pro  tantis,  shall  have  little  "glory."  In  the  world  to 
come  (as  a  general  rule  at   least)  the  highest  and  the  lowest 


78  ROMANS. 

will  be   those  who   stood    the  highest   in  hereditary  knowl- 
edge. 

12.  For  as  many  as  sinned  without  law,  shall  also  perish 
without  law ;  and  as  many  as  sinned  under  law,  shall  be 
judged  by  law. 

"For."  The  apostle  now  gives  his  most  philosophic  argu- 
ing. "  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons''  because  he  will  judge 
every  man  accordmg  to  the  light  he  has.  "  Sin  is  not  imputed 
where  there  is  no  law"  (5  :  13)  ;  but  this  is  only  an  imaginary 
case.  Idiots  and  infants  might  come  up  to  it.  But  the  low- 
est Bushman  has  '^  /aw  j  "  otherwise  there  could  be  no  pun- 
ishment. When  Paul  writes  "without law,"  he  is  writing 
Orientally.  The  Bible  is  full  of  such  exaggeration.  When 
Christ  says,  "Ye  had  not  had  sin"  (Jo.  15  :  22),  He  means, 
Ye  had  not  had  near  so  much  sin.  When  Paul  says,  "  Sent 
me  not  to  baptize  "(i  Cor.  i  :  17),  he  meant,  chiefly,  or  not  near 
so  much.  And  so  in  the  present  text.  All  the  laws  of  the 
Jews  were  helpful  and  precious,  and  hence,  of  course,  increased 
their  responsibility.  Therefore  we  are  simply  taught,  the  more 
law  the  more  punishment.  The  crazy  notion  that  because  "  thou 
hast  taught  in  our  streets,"  therefore,  of  all  reasons  in  the 
world,  "  Lord,  Lord,  open  unto  us  "  (Matt.  25 :  11),  meets  here  a 
signal  refutation.  The  "/<27£'"we  did  not  have  we  will  not 
"  perish  "  for,  and  when  that  "  Ima  "  contains  the  gospel,  as  the 
whole  ''laiu''  from  Sinai  undoubtedly  did,  we  will  not  ^'■perish  " 
in  that  sin  which  Christ  talks  of  as  though  it  swallowed  all 
other  sin  (Jo.  15  :  22),  if  we  were  without  the  gospel  ;  but 
only  in  that  "  law  "  we  had,  viz.,  that  yvuarbv  6eov  which  is 
the  appanage  of  every  sinner  (i  :  19). 

13.  For  not  the  hearers  of  law  shall  be  righteous  before 
God,  but  the  doers  of  law  shall  be  made  righteous. 

"For."  The  apostle  very  naturally  goes  on  to  reason, 
If  any  other  rule  prevailed,  a  man  might  get  to  heaven  by 
hearing  law  instead  of  doing  it.  He  illustrates  by  the  case  of 
the  Jew.  He  is  about  to  press  that  case  (v.  17).  For  though 
the  epistle  is  catholic,  and  addressed  to  cosmopolitan  saints, 
he  seizes  upon  Jews  as  a  very  extreme  illustration.     "  If  thou 


CHAPTER  II.  79 

art  called  a  Jc7u''  (v.  17).  As  though  he  would  say,  Take 
the  worst  case.  Undoubtedly  he  was  glad  to  reach  that 
nation,  for  the  Rabbins  snared  them  fatally.  No  Jew,  they 
taught,  if  circumcised,  would  ever  perish.  Of  course  he  would 
benefit  that  nation.  But  dialectically  they  were  his  mere  case 
in  point.  He  would  show  the  folly  of  false  confidences,  and 
the  Jew,  as  betrayed  into  them  most,  he  could  hardly  leave 
out  in  such  reasoning.  "Righteous;"  in  the  way  we  are 
about  to  show,  '*  Righteous  before  God."  This  is  wonder- 
fully frequent  throughout  the  Bible.  Hezekiah  was  righteous 
before  God  (2  Ki.  20  :  3).  So  was  Zacharias  (Lu.  i  :  6).  So 
was  Elizabeth.  Righteous  before  men  a  man  may  be,  and  be 
very  unrighteous.  'I'he  Jews  were  in  that  condition.  ''Before'* 
anybody  means  in  his  sight,  or  in  his  opinion.  "  The  earth 
was  corrupt  before  God."  It  is  a  Hebraism,  and  Paul  devotes 
his  logic  to  show  how  mortal  man  can  be  made  really  just,  or, 
to  use  his  own  idiom,  how  the  sinner  can  be  "made  right- 
eous ^^/^r/?  Gody  "Made  righteous."  This  is  a  key  to  the 
whole  epistle.  It  is  Paul's  critical  expression  ;  and  yet, 
perhaps,  it  would  not  be,  if  men  had  not  warped  it  since  the 
days  of  Luther.  AfKOiow,  let  us  distinctly  think,  was  a  plain 
word  to  the  eye  of  a  Greek  ;  and  not  a  foreign  word.  It  was 
bred  in  the  language  itself.  Moreover  it  was  not  changed  by 
the  Hebrew  ;  for  the  Hebrew  equivalent,  as  more  simple,  was 
quite  direct.  Tire  Hebrew  was  the  Hipliil  of  the  verb  to  be 
righteous,  and  of  course  meant  to  make  righteous  ;  and  the 
Greek  was  a  verb  in  ow,  from  an  adjective  in  of.  What  that 
means  all  linguists  will  know,  'a^/ow  means  to  make  Ii^lo^. 
^EK/jucj  means  to  make  ifK-^df.  So  SiKaidu  in  the  present 
instance,  means  to  make  rJ/Ko^oc  (or  "  righteous ").  Now 
there  is  one  difficulty,  and  that  can  be  easily  explained.  Who 
is  ever  to  "  make  "  anybody  "  righteous  ?  "  The  word  hence 
is  rarely  used  in  the  classics,  and  dyidCw  (to  sanctify)  is  never 
used  at  all.  Therefore,  in  scripture,  neither  could  be  used, 
except  in  a  very  accommodated  sense. 

Nevertheless,  as   both    are  used,   and   fnKaioi^  also     in    the 
classics,  it  offers  itself  to  the  same  literary  dissection  as  any 


8o  ROMANS. 

other  predicate.  And,  at  the  very  outset,  among  many  other 
meanings,  it  offers  two  that  are  just  the  opposite.  How  are 
we  ever  to  decide  ?  A^/cafdw  to  hold  righteous  (Hdt.  i  :  89,  133), 
and  6LKaL6ii  to  condeinn  (Thuc.  3  :  40)  are  notorious  in  classic 
learning.  The  same  word  in  the  Greek  eye  is  to  mean  one 
thing  here,  and  flat  the  opposite  over  yonder.  What  are  we 
to  do  ?  Why  things  like  this  are  really  keys  to  unlock,  not 
facts  to  embarrass,  linguistic  difficulties.  They  tell  a  story, 
just  as  men  do  who  are  comrades  on  the  opposite  sides  of  an 
impassable  arm  of  the  sea.  We  make  an  inference  at  once — 
One  or  the  other  forded  where  the  stream  was  near  its  spring. 
So  now  of  diKaiou.  It  is  foolish  in  Robinson,  and  worse, 
classically,  in  Donnegan,  to  come  down  the  stream  and  choose 
a  meaning  as  of  the  fountain  head,  which  makes  it  necessary 
to  suppose  that  just  the  opposite  is  across  the  gulf,  and  the 
ford  practically  impossible.  Such  has  been  a  dreadful  habit 
of  interpreters.  Instead  of  saying  ^maLOi^  originally  meant  to 
count  righteous  (see  Robinson),  is  it  not  better  to  go  high  up 
the  stream,  and  ask.  What  does  6iKrj  mean  ?  insisting  upon  a 
traceable  signification  ?  Then  ^iKaioq^  which  is  next  below, 
would  be  the  adjective,  evidently,  from  the  noun  j/zc?;.  Then 
dLKaioii  would  be  the  verb,  creative  of  the  condition  implied 
in  the  adjective.  Just  as  a^L6u>  means  to  make  h^ioq,  so  dcKaLoiji 
would  naturally  mean  to  make  diKaioq^  whatever  the  adjective 
from  diKT}  would  naturally  imply.  ^LKai(^iia  would  then  come  in 
as  the  resulting  effect,  and  dmaluaic  as  the  substantive  act, 
and  diKaioavvTj  not  as  the  same  as  61k?j,  but  as  the  condition  of 
the  man  or  the  thing  that  possessed  the  6U?j.  This  now  is  as 
smooth  a  laying  down  as  of  any  possible  tracings  of  sense, 
marred  only  by  the  fact  of  the  horrible  scarcity  of  subjects  ; 
for  in  heathen  history  where  was  the  enrighteouser  ?  and, 
either  in  church  or  temple,  where  was  the  instance  of  the 
enrighteousment  in  any  actual  sense  of  one  being,  in  this 
world,  by  another  ? 

Still,  to  see  how  to  eount  righteous,  when  it  came  to  that, 
could  change  in  the  end  into  condemn,  let  us  trace  the  thing 
fairly  down  by  beginning  at  the  head.     What  does  dk^  mean  ? 


CHAPTER  II.  8i 

Originally,  every  body  agrees,  it  meant  custom.  MKaioc  would 
then  mean  customary  ;  and,  sure  enough,  we  read  in  Homer  of 
persons  {diKaiovq)  ''observant  of  custom"  (Od.  3:  52).  But 
as  what  is  customary  among  a  settled  people  must,  for  mere 
State  preservation,  be  principally  right,  dUr/  as  the  rig/it 
soon  got  a  final  footing.  And  let  us  disabuse  it  of  all  mix- 
tures. It  meant  rig/it  in  esse.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that. 
It  was  used  to  mean  the  intrinsically  noble,  morally  excellent, 
or  sc?uet  ipso  virtuous  or  divinely  right  thing.  Aka^of,  now,  meant 
simply  the  adjective  for  that,  and,  hurrying  on  to  our  con- 
clusion, diKaiou  meant  simply  to  make  a  man  or  a  thing  after 
the  character  of  that  adjective.  The  world  would  get  back  to 
that  sense  after  exiles  under  a  thousand  Luthers. 

But  now,  the  necessary  variations,  a.k;?  undoubtedly  meant 
the  right.  MKaioq  meant  right  in  the  adjective  sense,  and  could 
be  applied  either  to  persons  or  things.  Among  persons  God 
can  receive  the  title  without  perplexing  us,  for  he  is  "  right- 
eous'' just  as  the  sky  is  blue,  or  the  ocean  beautiful,  (kibriel 
and  Christ  are  unequivocally  right.  But  man  is  not.  And  we 
are  to  consider  the  variance  by  which  we  call  him  so.  And 
the  grandest  simplifier  is  to  look  at  other  words.  How  is  a 
man  "clean  "  (Jo.  15:3)?  Why  do  we  call  him  "  holy  "  (Mar. 
6  :  20)  ?  This  is  a  helpful  part  of  our  study  ;  for  we  have 
nothing  to  do  but  to  press  that  question.  Why  should  we  go 
off  into  sophisms  and  say,  to  make  righteous  means  to  count 
righteous,  unless  we  say,  to  make  holy  means  to  count  holy  ? 
\Nq  dLXQ'' quickened:'  Precious  little  !  Set  free.  Alas,  alas  ! 
There  are  plenty  of  words  in  which  a  whole  story  is  spared 
the  reader.  Unless  we  are  willing  to  say  counted  clean  wherever 
that  word  is  to  appear,  we  have  no  right  to  say  counted  righteous; 
for  the  motives  of  the  two  things  are  precisely  similar,  and 
either  would  do  harm,  as  tending  to  obscure  incipient  sanctifi- 
cation.  A  righteous  man,  therefore,  is  called  a  righteous  man  in 
scripture  when  he  is  less  sinful  by  the  grace  of  his  Redeemer, 
and  when  that  young  righteousness,  which  is  really  not 
righteousness  at  all  (just  as  it  is  not  holiness),  is  the  earnest 
of  more  and  better  daily  and  in  the  life  to  come. 


S2  ROMANS. 

So  much  for  dimioq.  Now  for  diKaioo.  It  means  to  7nake 
right.  First,  as  to  things.  A  man  stabs  a  man.  A  chief 
autocrat,  looking  on,  says,  I'll  make  that  right.  How  can  he  ? 
Why,  of  course,  by  punishing.  This  is  the  way  the  comrade 
crossed  the  water.  He  crossed  it  high  up.  'Yo  justify  a  man, 
and  to  condem?i  a  man,  would  come  strangely  out  of  the  same 
word,  if  the  word  primarily  meant  count  righteous  (Robinson)  ; 
but  let  it  mean  to  make  right  (Liddell),  and  the  divergence 
easily  occurs.  If  I  see  a  man  robbing  a  cripple,  and  say,  I'll 
make  him  all  right,  or  see  a  man  nobly  defending  him,  and 
say,  I'll  make  him  all  right,  my  meanings  are  directly  opposite  ; 
and  yet  they  are  not  opposite  at  all.  I  mean  in  either  case  I'll 
see  the  thing  righted  ;  and  in  Scotland  justifying  a  man  means 
to  hang  him  (see  Liddell). 

There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  why  6iKai6u  should  not  be 
translated  to  make  righteous.  If  it  is  said.  Men  are  not  righteous, 
I  answer.  Neither  are  men  holy.  Unless  you  are  willing,  there- 
fore, to  abandon  sanctifying  or  making  holy,  and  cleansing  and 
setting  free,  articulately  you  are  just  as  reasonable  when  you 
say  ''  made  righteoiLs.''  If  you  say.  Justifying  is  used  putatively, 
I  say.  So  is  sanctifying.  ''  The  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified 
by  the  husband  "  (i  Cor.  7:  14).  If  you  say.  Undoubtedly 
the  one  is  used  of  pronouncing  or  declaring  righteous  ;  I  say, 
So  is  cleansifig.  The  priest,  upon  certain  marks,  was  to  cleanse 
the  leper,  and  upon  certain  other  marks,  was  to  foul  him 
(Lev.  13 :  3-13),  which  King  James'  men  very  properly 
translated  to  *' pronounce  clean"  (Lev.  13:  13),  or  to  pro- 
nounce unclean  {ib.  5  :  3),  according  to  the  state  of  the  leper. 
But  if,  keen  for  the  Lutheran  justification  (which,  let  me 
remark  here  had  no  syllable  to  teach  it  for  fifteen  cen- 
turies*), you  say,  God   is  said  to  be  justified  (Lu.  7  :  29) — 


*  This  is  a  very  remarkable  fact,  Luther  has  been  celebrated  above 
other  achievements  of  his  history  for  his  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith. 
Luther  invented  it.  There  is  not  a  line  of  it  in  the  world  before  him. 
Augustine,  whom  the  modern  woi  Id  makes  foremost  in  the  faith,  gives  the 
natural  sense  to  justification.  "  Who  has  wrought  righteousness  in  a  man, 
but  He  who  justifies  the  ungodly  ;  that  is,  by  His  grace  makes  a  righteous 


CHAPTER  II.  83 

and  men  are  said  to  be  justified  who  are  notoriously  wicked 
(i^-  5-  23),  I  say,  Such  usages  are  in  every  language.  I 
murder  my  victim  if  I  do  it  in  buskins  on  a  stage.  I  crush  my 
opponent,  when  he  is  laughing  at  me,  and  taking  notes  to 
crush  me  immediately  afterward.  Men  justify  God  (E.  V. 
Lu.  7  :  29)  just  as  we  sanctify  Him,  or  pray,  ''  Sanctified  be 
Thy  name."  And  men  make  the  wicked  righteous  (Is.  5  :  23) 
when  they  pretend  to,  or,  to  slide  off  into  more  unusual 
language,  just  as  they '*  take  away  the  righteousness  of  the 
righteous  from  him  "  (Is.  5  :  21). 

Men  are  sadly  in  error  when  they  speak  of  their  own  doc- 
trine as  purely  forensic.  It  is  not  only  not  forensic,  but  no 
counterpart  of  any  word  spoken  among  men.  It  is  a  favorite 
assertion  that  &LKai6u>  in  this  constrained  sense,  has  the  enor- 
mous predominance  of  approved  usage.  It  is  time  to  take 
note  of  the  fact  that  it  has  no  usage  at  all,  unless  we  make  an 
exception  to  this  in  the  usage  of  these  very  men  themselves. 

A  forensic  justifying  is  a  pronunciation  by  a  judge  that  a 
man.  because  he  is  not  guilty,  is  actually  righteous.  A  jury, 
from  this  nice  distinction  in  men's  minds,  do  not  "  make  "  a  ver- 
dict, but  "  find"  it.  When  I  justify  (kxl,  I  find  Him  righteous 
actually.  When  I  justify  the  wicked,  I  assert  the  same  thing. 
When  wisdom  is  justified,  she  is  found  righteous  ;  and  when 
the  publican  is  more  justified,  he  is  subjectively  a  better  man 
than  the  hollow-brained  Pharisee  who  is  arraigned  against  him. 
These  are  all  subjective  findings,  or  makings  out,  while, 
heaven-wide  from  this,  the  Lutheran  idea  is  factitious  and 
nothing  of  the  kind.  "The  hearers  of  law,"  therefore,  "are 
not  righteous  before  God  ;  but  the  doers  of  law  shall  be  made 
righteous."     That  is,  sweeping  all  the  contents  of   law   into 


man  of  an  impious  man  ?  "  (Ps.  118,  vol.  8).  "  Justification  here  is  imper- 
fect in  us  "  (vol.  5  ,  p.  867).  "  When  our  hope  shall  be  completed,  then  also 
our  justification  shall  be  completed"  (vol.  5.  p.  790).  Chrysostom.  Anselm. 
Jerome,  Aquinas,  Justin,  and  all  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  made  justification 
mean  sanctification,  with  none  other  than  a  picturesque  or  mere  illustrative 
distinction.  They  knew  no  other.  Why  are  we  not  informed  of  this  in  the 
History  chairs  of  our  seminaries  ? 


84  ROMANS. 

one,  (and  that  will  include  the  "  obedience  of  faith,"  1:5  ;  16  : 
26,  as  well  as  every  other  obedience),  the /^^^r/;2:^  of  such  a  law, 
instead  of  making  a  man  more  righteous,  may  make  him  more 
wicked  ;  but  the  doing  of  it  is  itself  righteousness.  If  it  were 
perfect  it  would  be  righteousness  like  God's.  It  may  be  very 
imperfect,  and  yet  <'  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  ;  "  and  if  it  is  a  righteousness  risen  at  all  above 
the  condition  of  growing  worse,  it  is  a  saving  righteousness, 
just  as  fitly  as  there  can  be  a  saving  repentance  (Acts  3  :  19)  ; 
and  it  is  a  conversion  and  a  rising  from  the  dead  (Jo.  5  :  25), 
and  a  new  life  (6  :  4),  and  as  of  a  clean  heart,  (Ps.  73  :  i),  and 
of  that  regenerating  and  sanctifying  power  which  begets  a  moral 
change,  and  shows  itself  in  ever  increasing  righteousness. 

14.  For  when  it  may  happen  that  Gentiles  who  have  not 
law,  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  such  men,  having 
not  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  15.  Being  persons  who 
exhibit  within  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts, 
their  consciousness  agreeing  in  the  testimony,  and  their 
reasonings  making  accusation  or  excuse  the  one  to  the 
other 

"For."  He  gives  now  the  reason  why  it  is  '•''  the  doers  of  law 
{fi\2X)  shall  be  made  righteous''  (3:  13).  The  parenthesis  into 
which  these  texts  are  thrown  (E.  V.),  is  for  purposes  of  special 
pleading.  The  words  are  to  be  understood  as  they  stand. 
Nothing  could  be  more  simple  naturally.  "When."  This  is 
a  very  contingent  when.  "Orav  means  wheri  rarely,  or  when 
possibly,  or  "  when  it  may  happen  that."  "  Gentiles."  "Orav  indi- 
cates that  he  is  not  speaking  of  all  Gentiles,  or  of  many  Gen- 
tiles. The  article  is  left  off.  "  Who  have  not  law :"  in  the 
sense  before  explained  (v.  12)  of  those  who  had  little 
"/^2£/y"  like  as  those  of  whom  Christ  speaks  as  having  "no 
sin  "(Jo.  15:  22).  "Do  by  nature."  That  does  not  mean, 
as  in  our  theological  language,  "  do  in  their  state  by  nature." 
The  word  occurs  but  fourteen  times  in  all  the  Testament ; 
sometimes  of  beasts  ;  rarely  of  character  ;  once  of  God  ;  and 
never  so  as  to  be  of  service  critically.  In  fact  our  technical 
adjective  [natural),  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned, 
comes  from  ^lyoxv  (i  Cor.  2  :  14,  44-46)  oftener  than  from  (i>vaLg, 


CHAPTER  II. 


85 


Men  are  said  to  be  Jews  by  nature  (Gal.  2  :  15)  ;  surely  not 
"  in  their  natural  state."  And  so  ''7.'hcn  Gentiles  who  have  not 
law,  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,"  they  do  them  in  the 
circumstances  of  their  birth  (^r^.)  and  not  in  the  more  artificial 
circumstances  of  having  heard  '^  the  law'' 

"  The  things  of  the  law  " ;  that  is,  the  gospel,  along  with  all 
the  other  "  thiti^^s!'  The  most  dreadful  law  is  the  gospel,  the 
most  cruel  infinitely  to  them  that  disobey  (Matt.  21  :  44  ;  Jo. 
16  :  9).  Sinai  thundered  that  with  its  most  terrible  denuncia- 
tions. We  must  either  imagine  that  it  was  mocking  Israel,  or 
else,  when  it  said.  Do  this  and  thou  shalt  live,  we  must 
remember  how  much  of  Sinai  revealed  a  Redeemer.  It  reeked 
with  sacrifices  and  bloody  rites.  And  it  gendered  to  bondage, 
not  because  those  that  followed  its  teaching  were  not  saved  ; 
thousands  were  saved  ;  but  because  the  "  old  covenant,"  which 
it  exhibited,  had  to  become  a  "  new  covenant,"  and  to  be 
"  written  in  ; "  that  is,  the  revelation  made  on  Sinai  had  to  be 
in-wrought.  What  Moses  said  with  a  veil  upon  his  face, 
Christ  had  to  say,  having  stripped  off  the  veil  ;  He  being  *'  the 
prophet  like  Moses,"  but  turning  the  outward  into  the  inward, 
taking  the  old  covenant  and  turning  it  into  a  '*  new  covenant," 
simply  by  having  it  submitted  to,  that  is,  by  writing  it  on  the 
heart  (Jer.  31  :  i^).  Now  what  do  we  want  of  Christ  pre- 
cisely ?  That  will  explain  our  text,  (i)  First,  all  His  sacrifice 
is  necessary  ;  and  that  more  (and  more  positively)  than  we 
can  speak  of  or  imagine.  Without  the  shedding  of  blood  there 
can  be  no  remission  (Heb.  9  :  22).  But  then  the  whole  world 
has  that;  Why  then  might  not  all  heathen  be  saved  ? 
Because,  (2)  second.  He  must  convert.  It  lies  with  Christ  not 
simply  to  redeem  but  to  convert  the  sinner.  Why  then  may 
He  not  convert  the  heathen  ?  Because,  (3)  thirdly,  He  requires 
the  truth,  and  this  of  course  ranges  with  the  passage  where 
"  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  "  is  declared  to  be  the 
uttered  ''  gospel." 

So  much  is  settled. 

But  now  a  question  remains  which  is  quite  unsettled,— How 
much  truth?  (i)   Ransom  is  indispensable.  (2)  Conversion  is 


S6  ROMANS. 

of  vital  force.  But  these  are  provided  by  the  Redeemer.  The 
question  is  (4)  How  much  truth  must  be  provided  ?  And 
there  is  much  in  the  word  of  God  to  lower  rather  than  to 
heighten  this  demand  for  the  saving  of  the  sinner. 

Hardly  has  Paul  asked  "  How  shall  they  hear  without  a 
preacher  ?  "  before  he  thunders  forth,  "  But  I  say,  Have  they 
not  heard  ?  "  (10  :  18),  and  then  plunges  into  that  great 
answer, — ''  Their  sound  has  gone  out  into   all  the  world  "  (Ps. 

19  : 4).  This  was  an  old  teaching  (Col.  i  :  6,  23).  To  these  very 
Romans  he  has  supported  our  text  by  a  previous  position  : — 
"  For  that  which  was  known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them  ; 
for  God  made  the  manifestation"  (i  :  19);  and  then  he  says, 
"  They  kept  back  the  truth  "  (i  :  18).  Now  we  have  only  to 
ask,  Does  that  truth,  thus  wilfully  kept  back,  never  assert 
itself  ?  We  must  be  carefully  understood,  (i)  Redemption 
is  necessary  ;  but  that  is  a  work  done.  (2)  Regeneration  is 
just  as  vital  ;  and  that  too  must  be  by  the  power  of  the 
Redeemer,  (Jo.  5  :  21).  (3)  And  he  must  regenerate  by  the 
truth  (i  Pet.  I  :  23),  at  least  we  know  of  no  other  method.  (4) 
But  query,  how  much  truth  ?  Is  not  that  really  the  only 
point  in  the  difficulty  ?  The  heathen  has  vast  truth,  and  it  has 
been  shed  upon  him  by  revelation.  He  knows  of  God.  He 
knows  of  grace.  He  knows  of  sacrifice.  He  has  a  distant 
shadow  of  pardon  and  redemption.  He  has  images  of  prayer. 
How  much  more  had  Abraham  ?  (Gen.  15  :  8).  Yea,  Peter? 
{Matt.  26  :  56).  When  John  verily  thought  that  he  might  be 
an  attache  to  the  throne,  how  much  more  had  Salome  ?     (Matt. 

20  :  21).  No  hint  can  be  gathered  that  Cornelius  had 
knowledge  of  Christ,  and  he  is  a  snare  unless  he  can  be  con- 
verted without  it.  We  do  not  doubt  that  "  the  gospel  is  the 
power  of  God''  (Rom.  i  :  16),  for  that  we  have  just  been  inter- 
preting ;  but  query,  how  much  gospel  ?  Undoubtedly  a  man 
is  saved  who  is  better  morally,  for  that  is  the  repentance  with 
which  the  Bible  rings.  The  question  is  only,  then.  Were  these 
men  better  ?  and  with  all  that  remains  of  the  text  we  would 
say.  Decidedly  they  were. 

"May."    Notice   the  subjunctive.     The  thing  imagined  to 


CHAPTER  II.  87 

"  come  to  pass  "  might  come  so  rarely.  Paul  is  urging  the 
gospel,  and  would  not  be  likely  to  exaggerate  our  chance 
without  it.  IJut  it  was  of  his  mind  to  show  that  hearing  was 
not  doing  ;  and  it  made  that  more  intense  to  intimate  that 
doing  might  sometimes  be  without  hearing,  that  is  without  so 
much  hearing  as  the  Jews  might  boast  of  in  "  t/ie  oracles  of  God  " 
(3  :  2).  "Such  men."  There  is  a  change  to  the  masculine. 
"As  persons."  We  have  remarked  on  onivtq  before  (i  :  32). 
"  Exhibit  within."  The  h  should  have  its  emphasis.  "The 
Law;"  with  the  article.  "The  work  of  the  law."  Put  all 
these  peculiarities  together.  Not  " /c/7i:' "  in  its  vaguer  gener- 
ality, but  "  the  /au'y'  just  as  though  they  had  heard  the  noblest 
teaching  of  the  Law-giver.  Not  law,  in  theory  espoused,  but 
practically,  "  f/ie  work  of  the  law''  And  not  that  "  work  "  pre- 
scribed by  "  the  /a7c\"  doctrinally  submitted  to,  but  exhibited 
withiji  ;  and  definitely,  to  crown  the  representation,  "written 
in  their  hearts,"  a  clause  impossible  to  satisfy,  without  the 
idea  of  inward  conversion  (see  Prov.  3  :  3  ;  2  Cor.  3  :  2,  3  ; 
Heb.  8  :  10  ;  10  :  16).  "Consciousness."  Not  ''^conscience'* 
(E.  v.).  When  Paul  says,  "  I  have  lived  in  all  good  conscience 
before  God  until  this  day  "  (E.  V.  Acts  23  :  i),  he  was  infinitely 
far  from  claiming  a  good  moral  sense.  ^Lxrvkifinciq  had  not 
become  so  definite.  When  Paul  said  he  had  '*  a  good 
consciousness,"  he  meant  that  he  was  sincere.  When  he 
directed  people  *'  to  keep  a  consciousness  void  of  offence," 
he  was  bidding  them  be  honest.  And  Peter,  wiien  he  says 
that  ''  baptism  "  (which  is  his  name  for  conversion,  just  as 
"  circumcision  "  is,  a  few  sentences  below,  vs.  28,  29)  is  "  not 
the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,"  means  that  it  is,  like 
''  ri^^hteousness  "  here  with  Paul,  a  very  imperfect  cleansing. 
*'  Putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh  "  means  perfectness,  not  at 
all  bodily  washing.  And  Peter  says,  Baptism  (conversion)  does 
not  pretend  to  that,  but  is  "the  inquiry  of  a  good  conscious- 
ness after  God"  (i  Pet.  3  :  21). 

"  Consciousness,"  therefore,  in  the  present  text,  means  their 
honest  actual  conviction.  These  convictions  hold  court,  so 
the  text  proceeds  to  fancy,  and  make  "  accusation  or 
excuse  the  one  to  the  other." 


S8  ROMANS. 

But  when  ?     Before   we  add   a  syllable,  any  usual   reader 
would  say,  Undoubtedly  in  this  world.     But  let  us  proceed. 

16.    In  a  day  when  G-od  judges  the  hidden  things  of  the 
men  through  my  gospel  by  Jesus  Christ. 
"  In  a  day."     That  means  any  day  in  which  the  "  gospel,'* 

which  in  a  few  sporadic  cases  men  have  been  saved  without, 
happens  to  reach  "  the  men."  Take  Peter.  He  was  a  saved 
man  before  the  scene  on  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  (Matt  4  :  20). 
Yet  what  did  he  know  of  the  '' gospel  V  Why,  afterwards, 
months  and  years,  he  imagined  it  an  earthly  kingdom  !  We 
ought  not  to  mock  the  facts  by  supposing  that  he  was  an  intel- 
ligent believer.  Yet  he  was  a  Christian.  So  was  John.  So 
was  Mary.  So,  afterward,  was  Cornelius.  Now,  suppose  ''  a 
day  "  when  some  Philip  mounts  into  the  chariot  and  explains 
the  way  of  God  more  perfectly.  What  is  the  result  t  Why, 
all  which  this  beautiful  text  expresses.  First,  it  is  ''  a  day  ;  "  not 
''the  day''  (E.  V).  King  James  took  this  translation  from  a 
text  that  had  not  the  article.  And,  though  some  MSS.  supply 
one,  the  authorities  are  very  balanced  (see  Alford)  ;  and  the 
reason  for  copying  one  in  might  easily  be  imagined  in  the  uni- 
versal haste  to  write  upon  the  thought  of  the  apostle  as  though 
he  were  speaking  of  the  Day  of  Judgment.  But  examine  him 
further.  Not  only  is  the  textus  receptus  ''  aday,''  but  it  joins 
a  sentence  which  must  be  plainly  understood  of  this  world. 
The  E.  V.  prefixes  a  long  parenthesis  (vs.  13-15),  but  it  is 
plainly  to  defeat  the  inference  of  which  we  speak.  And  not 
only  so,  but  the  other  terms,  "  the  hidden  things,"  for 
example,  and  the  word  ''Judge"  exactly  suit  the  facts  with  a 
man  like  Cornelius.  Let  us  bring  his  case  into  the  question. 
"  There  was  a  certain  man  in  Caesarea  called  Cornelius,  a  cen- 
turion of  the  band  called  the  Italian  band."  There  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence  that  this  heathen  captain,  landing  from 
Rome,  had  ever  dreamed  of  the  Nazarene.  In  an  inspired 
book,  would  not  the  opposite  have  been  noted  ?  He  was  just 
such  a  man  as  that  Peter  shrank  from  seeing  him  ;  and  it  took 
a  miracle  to  overcome  the  prejudice.  And  yet  he  was  "devout, 
and  one  that  feared  God,  gave  much  alms  to  the  people,  and 


CHAPTER  II.  89 

prayed  to  God  always."  Now,  what  would  naturally  happen 
upon  Peter's  visit?  First,  there  would  be  a  '"'' judginoit,''  and 
let  us  trace  the  use  of  that  word  in  other  sentences.  See  just 
below  in  the  present  chapter  :  "  Shall  not  the  uncircumcision, 
if  it  fulfil  the  law,  judge  thee,  who,  with  the  letter  and  circum- 
cision art  a  transgressor  of  the  law  ?  "  As  though  a  man 
should  say,  Does  not  this  peasant  with  his  splendid  taste, 
though  he  has  never  seen  an  easel  in  his  life,  judge  thee  who, 
an  idiot  in  taste,  hast  nevertheless  been  painting  nearly  all 
thy  days  ?  And  then  a  more  marked  case  :  '^  But  if  all  proph- 
esy, and  there  come  in  one  that  believeth  not,  he  is  convinced 
■of  all,  he  is  judged  of  all  :  and  thus  are  the  hidden  things 
of  his  heart  made  manifest  "  (i  Cor.  15  :  25).  Here  we  are 
helped  forward  to  this  second  expression.  Now,  to  sum  all 
up.  What  does  Cornelius  encounter  when  he  encounters  the 
gospel?  If  he  ha.?, '^  hidden  things''  oi  righteousness,  as  the 
account  assures  us  he  had,  or,  as  Peter  expresses  it,  "the 
hidden  man  of  the  heart  "  (i  Pet.  3  :  4),  and  not  "  the  hidden 
things  of  shame "  (2  Cor.  4  :  2),  or  "the  hidden  things 
of  darkness  "  (i  Cor.  4:5),  then,  "by  Jesus  Christ  through 
the  gospel''  his  ^^  hidden  things  "will  hQ  Judged  j  that  is,  that 
dawning  "  righteous?iess,"  which  is  neither  law-satisfying  right- 
eousness, nor  down-tending,  increasing,  impenitent  wickedness, 
will  be  found  out  or  get  a  judgment^  and  will  be  found  to  have 
been  made  possible  by  the  redemption  of  Christ,  wrought  by 
His  grace,  and  in  this  way  '■''judged  "  joyfully  when  it  meets  "  the 
_gospel."  This  is  a  grand  text,  incapable  of  any  allusion  to 
the  Last  Day  ;  illustrating  as  the  ydp  implies,  how,  even  in 
extreme  cases,  "  tJie  doers  of  the  law  will  be  made  righteous,"  (v. 
13)  ;  and  illustrating  that  grand  fact,  that  though  a  man  may 
get  repentance  very  rarely  without  a  pretty  extensive  knowledge 
of  Christ,  yet  he  may  and  does,  sometimes  with  very  little,  and 
that  if  he  does,  no  matter  how  he  gets  it,  he  has  been  born  again  ; 
that  is,  if  any  man  becomes  a  better  man,  when  all  impenitent 
men  steadily  grow  worse,  he  has  in  some  way  got  hold  of  God, 
probably  like  Cornelius,  by  praying  to  God  daily  ;  and  how 
little  "  ia'd'  "  this  requires  no  mortal  knows.     If,  like  Sinai,  it 


90  ROMANS. 

includes  the  gospel,  a  man,  like  Abraham,  may  have  but  little 
^^  law,"  and  yet  emerge  as  the  very  "father  of  believers." 

"But  if."  We  need  say  nothing  of  the  various  reading 
here,  "ide  (E.V.).     Paul  seems  to  have  written  eUk. 

17.  But  if  thou  art  by  name  a  Jew,  and  restest  upon 
law,  and  boastest  thyself  in  God,  18.  And  understandest 
the  will,  and  judgest  between  things  that  differ,  being 
instructed  out  of  the  law,  19.  And  art  confident  about 
thyself  that  thou  art  a  guide  of  the  blind,  a  light  of  them 
who  are  in  darkness,  20.  A  corrector  of  the  foolish,  a 
teacher  of  babes,  having  the  forming  of  the  knowledge 
and  of  the  truth  in  the  law,  2 1 .  Then,  the  teacher  of  others, 
teachest  thou  not  thyself?  the  preacher  that  there  must 
be  no  thieving,  dost  thou  thieve?  22.  Thou  who  say  est 
that  there  must  be  no  adultery,  dost  thou  commit 
adultery  ?  thou  who  hast  disgust  for  idols,  dost  thou 
strip  temples?  23.  Being  a  man  who  boastest  thyself  in 
law,  by  the  transgressing  of  the  law  dishonorest  thou 
God?  24.  For  the  name  of  God  is  blasphemed  among 
the  Gentiles  because  of  you,  just  as  it  has  been  written. 

"But."  This  apostolic  '^ but"  means  to  say.  If,  in  addition 
to  Judging  (v.  i),  and  in  divers  manners  holding  thyself  above 
the  sweep  of  the  general  condemnation,  thou  hast,  either  by 
birth  or  proselytism,  the  "name"  of  "a  Jew,"  then  pre- 
tensions, if  false,  are  naturally  more  insidious,  for  "thou 
restest"  and  "boastest"  and  "art  confident"  in  divers 
ways  which  he  describes.  He  begs  to  know  if  teaching  does 
not  \m\Ay  doiitg  (v.  21),  even  more  than  hearing  does  (v,  13). 
The  whole  argument  is  cumulative,  but  does  not  depart  from 
being  general.  If  he  mentions  the  "■  Jeiv"  he  accomplishes, 
side  purposes,  of  course,  but  not  for  an  instant  by  abandoning 
his  thread.  The  Jew  is  his  intense  illustration  ;  and  in  the 
hub  of  the  universe,  which  was  then  Rome,  he  wishes  to  start 
upon  his  gospel  with  ''  all  the  world  guilty  before  God  " 
(3  :  19).  "Understandest  the  will."  If  Paul  meant  ^^ of 
God"  (see  E.  V.  &  Re.),  why  did  he  not  say  so?  If  a  man 
thinks  he  should  interpolate  "  Jiis  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  into  the 
English,  why  was  it  absent  from  the  Greek  ?  We  know  very 
little  of  the  psychology  of  Paul,  but  if  he  meant  exactly  what 


CHAPTER  II. 


91 


he  has  written,  and  meant  to  attribute  to  the  Rabbis  theoretic 
teachings  about  "7.7//"  (and  Paul  knew,  for  he  had  sat  at 
their  feet),  it  would  be  a  fine  prelude  to  what  immediately 
succeeds  ;  for,  discussing  the  proper  choices  of  "  the  will,'" 
that  is,  judging  between  things  that  differ,  was  a  great 
stroke  in  the  casuistry  of  Israel.  *  Thou  who  makest  the  nicest 
moral  distinctions  for  the  direction  of  the  will,  why  dost  thou 
flout  them  by  all  iniquity?'  "Art  by  name."  The  verb 
means  to  add  a  name ;  and  that  is  exactly  what  Paul  does. 
He  adds  the  consideration  of  being  a  Jew  to  others  previously 
stated.  But  unfortunately  for  this  nicety  of  speech,  the  word 
means  simply  to  name  in  other  places  (LXX.  Gen.  4:17,  26). 
"Law"  and  "the  law"  are  distinctions  strictly  kept  up 
throughout  the  passage.  "Forming."  m,;/jow<t<c  is  not  the 
same  as  ^op^ij.  ^iKaiuioiq  (5  :  18)  is  not  the  same  as  ihKuiufia 
(5  :  16,  18).  AiKacuoic  means  t/ie  act  of  makifii^  rn^/i/eous. 
So  n6p<puGiQ  means  the  ^^ forming''  or  l/iroioing  into  form. 
That  the  Jews  had  the  '■'■  form''  of  "knowledge"  was  true. 
But  that  they  undertook  the  ''forming  "  of  it  by  teaching 
and  correcting  opens  them  still  more  to  the  attack  of  the 
apostle.  "  The  knowledge  and  the  truth."  We  must  observe 
the  article.  "  In  the  law."  AH  "  knaivledgc  "  and  all  ''  truth  " 
was  '' in  the  laic,''  even,  as  we  have  seen,  ''  the  kno^uledge"  oi 
the  gospel.  The  scribes  and  Pharisees  sat  in  Moses'  seat. 
If  they  could  inwardly  have  "instructed  out 'of  the  law," 
they  would  have  saved  every  body.  But  they  could  only 
accomplish  the  ^opouaic.  They  could  form  the  truth,  and 
throw  it  into  theory.  And  Paul  is  about  to  show  them  (v.  28) 
that  "he  is 'not  a  Jew  who  is  one  h  tu>  tpavrpu  (that  is,  in 
a  way  that  can  be  exhibited  in  speech)  ;  for  he  has  just  been 
saying  (v.  27)  that  there  were  those  who,  along  with  the 
letter  and  circumcision,  were  transgressors  of  law ;  but 
that  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  h>  ru  Kpv-r,j  (see  '*  the  hid- 
den things"  spoken  of  above,  v.  16),  "  and  circumcision  is 
of  the  heart,  in  spirit,  not  in  letter  (not  in  any  way  that 
men  could  ''form  "  by  instructing  in  the  truth),  whose  praise- 
is  not  of  men,   but  of  God." 


92  ROMANS. 

"Strip  temples."  We  know  nothing  about  this.  Y.vXri 
was  by  the  law  of  reprisals,  and  in  maritime  language  was  the 
forfeiture  of  a  ship,  'i  tpoovXoL  were  those  who  took  some 
such  step  against  temples  ;  but  how,  or  why,  or  for  what  uses, 
we  are  utterly  uninformed.  "Correctors  of  the  foolish" 
would  naturally  have  "  the  name  of  God  blasphemed  "  if 
they  stripped  one  sanctuary  to  adorn  another. 

25.  For  circumcision  indeed  profits  if  thou  dost  ob- 
serve law ;  but  if  thou  be  a  transgressor  of  law,  thy  circum- 
cision has  become  uncircumcision. 

Paul  has  a  wholesome  horror  of  undervaluing  Judaism. 
Sixty  years  before  it  was  the  only  religion.  In  the  chapter  be- 
low he  is  to  discuss  that  subject :  "  What  advantage  hath  the 
Jew  ?  and  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  "  (v.  i).  He  had 
already  announced  the  gospel  as  being  to  "  the  Jew  first  and 
also  to  the  Greek"  (i:  i6).  And  though  he  had  observed  the 
same  order  of  priority  for  the  curses  of  the  gospel  (v.  9),  he 
had  been  very  careful  to  repeat  it  as  to  the  blessings  (v.  10). 
There  is  no  mystery.  The  trained  man  is  most  cursed,  and,  in 
the  other  event,  most  blessed.  In  the  world,  at  the  time,  most 
were  Jews  who  were  of  the  number  of  the  disciples.  Peter 
swept  three  thousand  of  them  into  an  acquaintance  with  the 
Redeemer.  At  the  same  time  they  were  the  most  cursed.  God 
forbid  that  we  should  disparage  training.  It  is  the  recruiting 
school  of  the  Redeemer.  But  God  forbid  that  we  should  deny 
that  Daniel  Webster  is  more  responsible  than  Sin  Fong,  and 
must  do  better  than  mere  ^^  formiiig  the  trutJi'  (v.  20),  or  else 
perish  with  a  two-fold  penalty.  "Thy  circumcision."  Just 
like  thy  "  baptism  "  (6  :  4;Heb.  6:  2).  These  words  became 
beautifully  inclusive  (Col.  2  :  11  ;  i  Pet.  3  :  21).  "Has  become 
uncircumcision;"  and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  most  hideous 
form  of  it. 

26.  If,  therefore,  the  uncircumcision  observe  the  right- 
eous-making provisions  of  the  law,  shall  not  his  uncircum- 
cision be  reckoned  for  circumcision?  27.  And  shall  not 
the  uncircumcision,  which  is  by  nature,  if  it  fulfil  the  law, 
judge  thee  who,  along  with  the  letter  and  circumcision,  art 
a  transgressor  of  law?    28.  For  not  one  who  is  so  in  what 


CHAPTER  //.  93 

is  apparent,  is  a  Jew,  nor  is  that  which  is  so  in  what  is 
apparent  in  the  flesh,  circumcision.  29.  But  one  who  is  so 
in  what  is  hidden  is  a  Jew,  and  circumcision  is  of  the 
heart,  in  spirit,  not  in  letter,  whose  praise  is  not  from  men 
but  from  God. 

"The  uncircumcision  ;"  all  those  who  have  not  had  the 
advanta.i^es  of  the  Jew  (Rom.  3  :  i  etc).  "Righteous-making 
provisions."  AcKaiuua  does  not  mean  ''  righteousness^''  but  any 
"  provision  "  or  ordinance  that  was  to  7nake  righteous  either  a 
person  or  an  act.  Let  us  repeat  the  tracing  of  our  meanings. 
A//C//  means  wJuit  is  right.  MKaio^  means  right,  and  is  ap- 
plied to  persons  or  to  things.  The  English  usage  translates  it 
"  righteous"  when  applied  to  persons,  and  hence,  not  neces- 
sarily, but  often,  when  applied  to  acts.  *'  Righteousness " 
(diKaioai'v//)  is  the  noun  from  this  adjective.  AiKaiuo^c  is  the 
noun  for  making  either  a  man  or  thing  right  or  righteous. 
And  cUKaluua  is  the  thing  or  act  or  process  gone  through  with 
to  that  regard.  There  were  two  covenants,  one  "  the  old 
covenant  "  which  eujoiued  the  gospel  and  all  other  ordinances 
of  the  law  (Heb.  8  :  9),  and  the  other,  "  the  new  covenant"  which 
added  to  this,  effectual  or  actual  grace.  One  wrote  out  the  law 
and  thundered  it  from  Sinai,  gospel  and  all,  and  it  was 
*'  righteous-making''  in  this,  that  the  soul  that  hearkened  would 
live  thereby  (Deut.  11  :  27).  Moses  constantly  said  so, 
(Lev.  18  :  5);  and  millions  did  live,  because  the  "  new  cove- 
nant "  was  active  also  in  that  day.  "  The  old  covenant " 
gendered  to  bondage  (Gal.  4  :  24)  because,  taking  one  of  its 
commands,  for  example,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved  "  (Acts  16  :  31),  it  was  perfectly 
inoperative  unless  the  new  covenant  came  in  with  its  opera- 
tive grace.  Still  the  old  covenant  was  honest.  Men  would  be 
saved  if  they  would  hearken  and  turn  (Deut.  4  :  30,  31).  And 
therefore,  all  through  the  Old  Testament,  SiKaiufiara  was  a 
favorite  word  (LXX.)  for  "  old  covenant"  demands.  "Statutes" 
they  are  often  translated.  Still  oftener,  "  ordinances."  It  will 
be  seen  that  our  Revisionists  say  ''  ordinances"  here.  Zecharias 
was  represented  as  "  in  all  the  (SiKau'auaai  of  the  Lord  blameless" 


94  ROMANS. 

(Lu.  i:  6).  Still  \h^^^  righteous-making''  idea  should  be  kept. 
It  was  not  a  sure  enough  ^''righteous-making.''  When  Moses 
said,  "This  do  and  thou  shalt  live"  (Lev.  i8  :  5  ;  Lu.  10  : 
28),  he  was  not,  indeed,  mocking  the  impenitent  ;  nor  was  he 
saying  that  they  could  '■''  do  "  without  grace,  or  that  they  would 
^'' do"  perfectly  or  meritoriously  7£'////  grace;  but  he  was  de- 
claring that  all  that  was  promised  w^ould  be  complied  with  ; 
that  all  that  was  necessary  to  life  was  thundered  out  of  the 
mountain  ;  that  the  manna  and  the  rod  and  the  tables 
were  summaries  of  the  gospel  ;  that  any  who  listened 
would  be  saved  (and  many  who  listened  were  saved)  ;  but 
that  "  the  old  covenant "  must  have  the  benefit  of  "  the 
new  covenant,"  and  that  these  "  ;7^///d'^^/j--;//^/^V;/^"  demands 
should  write  them  on  the  heart,  that  God  might  be  our  God,  and 
we  genuinely  and  hv  rw  kpvtttc),  not  "  in  letter"  but  "  in  spirit " 
(Jo.  4  :  23),  His  believing  people.  This  is  the  mystery  of  "the 
two  covenants,"  so  hideously  abused  as  to  have  given  a  name, 
and  that  a  mistranslated  one,  to  the  older  and  younger  parts 
of  our  inspired  Bible.  "  Be  reckoned  for ;"  that  is,  i?e  or  stand 
for,  just  as  Abraham's  "  faith  "  was  actually  "  righteousness," 
that  is,  the  germ  or  dawning  of  it  (Matt.  17  :  20  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  7). 
**  Which  is  by  nature  ^'{tpimg  from  (pbu,  see  v.  14).  "  If  it  fulfil 
the  law ; "  that  is,  incipiently  so,  and  with  the  earnest  of  bet- 
ter, as  with  any  Christian.  The  word  is  not  Trlrjpou,  but  reTieidu. 
Job  was  called  (LXX.)  riMog  ("  perfect  ")  ;  though  poor  Job 
was  any  thing  but  perfect.  The  meaning  is,  reach  its  end.  The 
gospel  may  reach  its  end  when  it  is  any  thing  but  perfect  in  the 
mind  of  the  sinner.  "  Judge  thee."  Paul  has  brought  the 
case  completely  round.  Now  it  is  the  despised  Greek  that 
"judgeth"  (vs.  1-3),  and  that  in  this  case  rightfully,  the  con- 
temptuous Pharisee.  "  Along  with  the  letter  and  circum- 
cision." This  is  one  of  the  known  uses  of  Jm.  "  By  "  (E.  V.) 
is  a  mistranslation.  "  This  is  he  who  came  by  (E.  V.)  water  and 
blood"  (i  Jo.  5  :  6)  means  with  it  as  a  signal  accompaniment. 
So  '■^ by  (E.  V.)  prophecy"  (see  Comment,  i:  11  ;  also  i  Tim. 
4  :  14).  "In  what  is  apparent."  "  Outwardly"  (E.  V. 
&  Re.)    is    not    enough.     'Ev  ypd/z/^art  ("  in  letter ")    is   more 


CHAPTER  II.  95 

than  outward.  Paul  has  been  admitting  deep  pretensions. 
Though  I  have  all  knowledge,  he  says  in  another  place  (i  Cor. 
13  :  2).  Knou'inir  the  ^uill,  a?i J  ju dicing  t/iini^s  that  differ,  in- 
structed out  of  the  law,  having  the  ''forming  of  knowledge,''  and 
being  teachers  Awdi preacher sdL\\(\  deep  readers  in  religion,  follow- 
ing "  the  letter  "  with  the  most  painstaking  hope,  "  outwardly  " 
is  too  light  an  expression.  They  were  Jews  kv  r^  ^avfpu,  and 
close  up  to  that  sense.  We  would  better  translate  literally.  They 
were  Jews  to  all  appearance,  not  only  to  other  eyes,  but  in- 
7vardly  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  to  their  own.  And,  therefore,  Paul 
makes  a  much  higher  exaction.  He  is  a  Jew  who  is  one 
*' in  what  is  hidden  "  (just  the  expression  he  uses  of  some 
heathen,  see  above,  v.  16).  Circumcision  is  not  that  which 
is  "  in  what  is  apparent  in  the  flesh ;  but  circumcision  is  of 
the  heart"  (just  as  baptism  is:  see  this  often  r':peatcd — 
Deut.  10  :  16  ;  30  :  6  ;  Acts  i  :  5),  "inspirit  (that  is,  in  the 
Cxod-part  of  man,  Jo.  4  :  23,  24,  meaning  his  conscience), 
not  in  letter  "  (for  "  the  letter  killeth  ;  "  yea,  though  "  I  have 
all  knowledge  I  am  nothing,"  i  Cor.  13:  2):  "whose;" 
probably  a  neuter  :  ''circumcision''  is  feminine,  and  'lovAamq  is 
too  far  off  :  neuter  in  all  probability  for  the  whole  character 
as  stated  ;  "  whose  praise  is  not  from  men,  but  from  God." 
Probably  no  dozen  verses  of  the  Bible  (unless  it  be  i  Cor  13) 
describe  a  counterfeit  where  "  in  what  appears,"  both  outward 
and  inward,  there  is  a  closer  resemblance  to  piety.  "  The  hid- 
den things  "  (vs.  16,  29)  are  what  Paul  insists  upon  :  not 
that  our  life  ought  not  to  shine  forth,  but  that  counterfeit- 
ing is  too  deep  an  art.  What  a  man  really  is,  "  the  Day  will 
declare  "  (i  Cor.  3  :  13).  It  is  "  the  hidden  man  of  the  heart  " 
(i  Pet.  3:4).  And  sin  so  obscures  our  piety,  that,  with  the 
best  of  us,  for  the  most  part,  our  "  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in 
God  "  (Col.  3  :  3). 


96  ROMANS. 


CHAPTER  III. 

A  man's  being  a  Jew  being  no  certainty  that  he  is  a  believer, 
and  in  Elijah's  time,  to  all  appearance,  much  the  other  way  ; 
and  ''anger  and  wrath,  distress  and  anguish  (being)  to  the  Jew 
first," 

1.  What  then  is  the  advantage  of  the  Jew,  and  what  the 
profit  of  the  circumcision?  2.  Much  everyway:  for,  as 
the  very  first  thing  indeed,  the  fact  that  the  oracles  of 
God  were  believed.  3.  For  what  if  some  did  not  believe  ? 
Shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  in  God  utterly  in  vain  ? 
4.  Be  it  not  so  !  But  let  God  turn  out  true  and.  every  man 
a  liar,  as  it  has  been  written : 

That  thou  mightest  be  made  righteous  in  thy  words, 

And  triumph  when  thou  art  judged. 

"What  then  is  the  advantage?"  The  twelve  baskets 
that  were  left  over  were  described  by  this  same  word  (Matt. 
14  :  20).  It  means  surplus,  or  what  flowed  over.  "  Where  sin 
abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound"  (Trepiooevu  ).  He  had 
made  "  the  Jew  first "  in  everything,  so  that,  under  the  sever- 
ities of  the  last  chapter  it  became  well  to  know  what  the  Tvepiaabv 
or  abounding  over  consisted  in.  "  Oracles."  Loyof  means  word, 
but  loyia  (''  oracles  ")  means  something  more  ecclesiastical  or 
sacred.  "Were  believed."  It  will  not  hurt  to  resume  the 
thread  of  the  apostle,  and  to  do  it  often.  It  is  of  wonderful 
effect  in  binding  this  Greek  together.  Righteousness  is  a  noun 
answering  to  righteous,  and  righteous  is  an  adjective  answering 
to  d'lKri,  what  is  right.  This  right  is  moral,  and  never  wanders 
from  a  moral  signification,  except  as  holiness  does,  or  cleanness 
does,  or,  notoriously,  any  word  may,  in  well-understood  rhe- 
torical aberrations.  When  I  say,  The  priest  shall  make  him 
clean  (in  a  case  of  leprosy,  Lev.  13  :  13),  I  understand,  make 
him  out  clean,  or  "  pronounce  him  clean  "  (E.  V.).  "  Thy  name 
be  made  holy  "  is  not  a  thought  that  I  stop  or  hesitate  upon  in 
the  Lord's  prayer.  So,  then,  when  I  read  of  righteousness,  as 
applied  to  men,  I  remember  holi?iess  and  cleanness  as  applied  to 
the   same   erring   creatures,    and    it    balks   me   but   little  ta 


CHAPTER  I J  I.  c)j 

affix  the  necessary  limitations.  Ri)^hteous/icss,  as  applied  to 
Eve,  would  be  perfect ;  but  rii^/iteousness,  as  applied  to  Seth, 
would  really  be  iess  sinfulness,  just  what  Seth's  holiness  would 
be,  along  with  all  the  ideas  of  its  being  an  earnest  of 
more,  and  badge  of  that  pardon  of  sin  which  has 
procured  it,  in  eternal  mercy.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  are 
said  to  be  ^^  made  righteous  in  [His]  blood"  (5  :  9).  But 
what  breeds  righteousness  ?  or,  coming  still  closer  to  the  fact, 
what  is  righteousness  ?  It  is  a  new  moral  light.  *'  This  is  life 
eternal,  to  kmriv  thee"  (Jo.  17  :  3)  ;  "The  eyes  of  your 
understanding  being  enlightened  "  (Eph.  i  :  18);  "  God,  ^vho 
commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  (having)  shined 
into  our  hearts  ;  "  and  so  we  are  to  understand  tiie  genesis  of 
the  Christian.  We  may  get  rid  of  Oriental  speech  and  say, 
It  is  having  a  better  conscience.  But  when,  in  answer  to 
prayer,  this  better  conscience  appears,  or  when,  convinced  that 
I  am  a  sinner,  I  ask  God  for  moral  light  and  He  gives  it  to  me, 
a  favorite  expression  of  the  whole  is  that  He  gives  me  "/(/////." 
It  is  sometimes  described  by  saying  that  He  gives  me  *'  repent- 
ance" (2  Tim.  2  :  25),  and  sometimes  that  He  gives  me  "obe- 
dience" (16  :  26  ;  I  Pet.  i  :  2).  The  fundamental  fact  is  that 
He  hath  7nade  vie  righteous.  But  as  this  righteousness  is  very 
imperfect,  and  rather  a  seed  or  seal  of  what  is  to  be,  than 
anything  but  sinfulness,  Paul  calls  it  "  faith."  It  is  an  epitome 
of  history.  It  is  isogonous  with  repentance.  It  is  isometric. 
It  is,  in  the  grace  of  it,  identical.  It  is  "  righteous  "  for  the  same 
reason,  viz.,  its  possession  of  a  moral  light.  It  is  the  fruit  of 
a  moral  change.  And,  therefore,  it  is  a  favorite  word  for 
'^  righteousness^  Instead  of  ^^righteousness"  being  its  result 
{ox  holiness  ^\\.\\^x,  Hodge's  Syst.  Theol.  vol.  3  :  p.  108),  except 
as  one  degree  of  holiness  is  the  result  of  another,  it  is  itself 
"  righteousness,"  and  so  splendid  an  account  of  it  that  when 
Abraham  performed  that  wonderful  act  of  faith  in  offering 
his  son,  we  are  told  in  terms,  that  his  ''faith  "  was  reckoned 
"  righteousness,''  and  would  have  been  just  that  perfectly  but 
for  the  same  imperfection  by  which  "  righteousness  "  itself  is 
a  name  for  less  sinfulness. 


98 


ROMANS. 


Of  course  this  is  not  to  forget  that  faith  is  faith,  and  has  in 
it  the  element  of  beUeving  ;  any  more  than  that  hope  expects, 
and  love  dotes,  and  joy  has  the  element  of  pleasure,  yet 
neither  of  these  is  saving  till  it  is  holy.  We  cannot  be  saved 
except  by  seeking  God.  But  we  cannot  seek  God,  except  as 
the  impenitent  do,  who  only  thereby  bring  themselves  nearer 
to  grace  till  grace  actually  flows  in,  and  then  hope  and  joy  and 
faith,  and  all  the  exercises  of  righteousness  are  simultaneous 
gifts,  bestowed  upon  common  faith,  and  in  answer  graciously 
to  the  prayer  of  the  impenitent. 

"  What  advantage  then  has  the  Jew  !  "  Why  Paul  fairly  leaps 
to  an  answer  !  "  Much  every  way."  He  has  an  embarras 
des  richesses.  And  after  saying,  "  First  and  foremost,"  his  zeal 
exhausts  itself  upon  that.  "  What  profit  of  circumcision  ?  " 
Why,  this  profit,  Paul  declares  (and  lo  !  with  what  wonderful 
sight  he  touches  the  blessing),  that,  while  the  whole  world  was 
lying  in  wickedness,  millions  of  the  Jews  repented  and  "  believed^ 
What  other  blessing  was  there  ?  The  meaning  of  the  apostle, 
therefore,  is  that  "  the  advantage  of  the  Jew"  was  that  millions 
of  them  became  "  righteous^''  or  better  men,  and  that  the  shape 
of  their  betterment  was  the  same  as  with  Abraham,  and  that  their 
faith,  dawning  with  moral  light  upon  themselves  and  upon 
their  Maker,  was  reckoned  for  just  what  it  was,  an  incipient 
righteousness.  But  now  certain  confessions  !  First,  we  stand 
alone  in  this  English  ;  but  that  makes  little  difference,  for  the 
appeal  can  be  only  to  the  Greek.  Second,  ^^ oracles"  are 
plural,  and  neuter  plurals  usually  call  for  a  singular  verb. 
Third,  "  we^'e  efttrusted  with  "  (Re.)  or  "  had  committed  to  theni  " 
(E.  V.)  is  a  repeated  idiom  of  Paul.  "  I  have  been  entrusted 
with  a  dispensation"  (i  Cor.  9:17).  "I  have  been  put  in 
trust  with  the  gospel"  (Gal.  2  :  7).  "Which  was  committed 
to  my  trust "  (i  Tim.  i  :  11).  "  To  be  put  in  trust  with  the 
gospel "  (i  Thess.  2  :  4).  Fourth,  it  is  an  idiom  that  makes 
sense.  Now,  therefore,  it  is  just  there  that  we  start  our  reply. 
And  we  say,  first,  that  it  does  not  make  much  sense.  Con- 
sidering that  Paul  gave  density  to  everything,  he  did  not  give 
much  when  he  said  that  they  had  the  ^^ oracles''     What  is  that 


CJIAPTER  III. 


99 


greatly  more  than  saying  that  a  Jew  is  a  Jew.  Second, 
''  were  believed"  is  plural,  ** ///^  y^fw  "  is  singular.  Therefore, 
thirdly,  **?£'<'/'(?  believed''  may  have  been  made  plural  for  the 
very  purpose  of  distinction.  Had  it  been  made  singular  it 
might  necessarily  be  connected  with  ^^  the  Jew.''  Whereas,  as 
a  neuter  plural,  plenty  of  exceptions  warrant  the  cither  refer- 
ence. Neuters  that  are  massed,  agree  with  the  singular  ;  but 
neuters  that  are  individual,  and  seem  separable  in  their  make, 
claim  a  plural  ;  and  in  fact  these  idiosyncrasies  in  grammar 
allow  no  end  of  freedom.  P'ourth,  the  sentence  "What  if 
some  did  not  believe?  *'  is  almost  unmeaning  unless  for  this 
plainer  sense.  Fifth,  this  commoner  sense  occurs  likewise  with 
Paul  in  other  writings,  *'  Our  testimony  was  believed  " 
(2  Thess.  I  :  10,  E.  V.).  *'  Believed  on  in  the  world"  (i  Tim. 
7  :  16).  And  sixth,  the  oviravruq  (*'  not  all  toj^et/ier"),  of  which 
we  have  much  to  say  below  (v.  9),  loses  infinitely  there  but 
for  this  simpler  expression.  Our  understanding,  therefore, 
makes  out  this  significance  for  Paul, — That  **  the  Jew"  had 
great  "  advantage  "  because  millions  of  them  will  be  found  in 
heaven.  "  For  7vhat  if  some  did  not  believe  ?  "  That  of  course  is 
the  proper  question  if  the  other  is  the  proper  beginning  of  the 
context.  "  Shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  in  God 
utterly  in  vain  ?  " 

We  cannot  understand  this  till  we  are  informed  of  their 
Rabbinical  conceits.  They  had  this  quaint  teaching  :  "  No 
drop  of  Abraham's  blood  can  come  within  a  billion  of  miles  of 
the  Great  Gehenna,  be  there  only  lawful  circumcision."  This 
was  Paul's  "other  gospel  "  (Gal.  i  :  6).  Hence  the  reason  of 
his  cry,  *'  Circumcision  availeth  nothing"  (Gal.  5  :  6).  Hence 
their  ''endless  genealogies"  (i  Tim.  i  :  4).  And  hence  the 
reasoning  of  Paul. 

Their  ''faith  in  God"  carried  with  it  the  idea  that  all  would 
pull  through,  with  some  chastisements  no  doubt  (Ps.  89  :  32), 
whether  they  believed  or  not.  And  Paul  does  not  stop  just 
now  to  take  up  the  unsoundness  of  their  ''faith"  but  grapples 
them  just  here.  Is  God  to  be  ''true"  or  they  ?  Undoubtedly 
God  spoke  of  apostate  and  damned  Jews.  They  themselves 
turned  men  out  of  their   synagogues.     There   must  be  a  false 


loo  ROMANS. 

thinking  somewhere  ;  and  he  boldly  taxes  it  upon  them, 
^^  For  what  if  so7ne  did  not  believe"  (and  therefore  according  to 
their  own  Scriptures  perished,  Ps.  95  :  11)  "  shall  their  unbelief 
make  the  faith  in  God''  (that  is,  the  proper  confidences  in  which 
Moses  had  steeped  the  nation)  "  utterly  in  vain  ?  Be  it  not  so  ! 
But  let  God  be  made  out  true  and  every  man  a  liar,  as  it 
is  written— 

That  Thou  mightest  be  made  righteous  in  Thy  words, 

Aud  triumph  when  Thou  art  judged." 

It  is  not  the  ''faith  "  (E.  V.)  or  ''faithfulness  (Re.)  of 
God^''  but  that  "faith  of  (in)  God''  which  is  expressed  by  the 
same  language  in  another  place  (Mar.  11  :  22).  Paul  could 
scarcely  have  imagined  that  the  Jews  believed  that  all  of 
Abraham's  circumcised  children  should  certainly  be  saved^ 
but  he  denounced  their  "faith  "  as  only  satisfied  by  that,  and 
then  he  denounced  that  as  glaringly  against  the  oracles  of 
God.  "Be  it  not  so."  "  God  forbid"  (E.  V.  and  Re.) 
obliterates  the  "but"  in  the  next  sentence,  and  substitutes 
"Yea"  (E.  V.  and  Re.).  But  "  but"  {6l)  is  the  language 
of  the  apostle.  "  Let  God  turn  out  true."  This  is  characteristic- 
ally Hebrew.  It  is  a  Hebraistic  use  of  the  Greek  in  two  par- 
ticulars. In  the  first  place  it  is  intense  prediction  in  the  shape 
of  an  imperative.  When  Isaiah  says,  "  Make  the  heart  of  this 
people  fat"  (Is.  6  :  10),  who  will  understand  it  as  a  command  ? 
And  in  the  second  place,  it  is  making  God  true  or  God's 
becoming  true  (yivecdcj)  in  the  sense  of  his  turning  out  or 
being  shown  to  be.  The  last  of  these  particulars  is  to  be 
noted  where  Christ  commands  his  disciples  to  say,  "  Hallowed 
be  {ayiaaQtiTu)  Thy  name  "  (Matt.  6  :  9). 

The  Hebrew  will  deceive  us,  however,  unless  we  erect  a 
guard.  When  the  priest  cleansed  the  leper,  King  James 
wisely  translates  it,  "  pronounced  him  clean  ;  "  when  ht  fouled 
him  (for  that  is  the  Hebrew),  he  "pronounced  him  U7iclean  " 
(E.  v.,  Lev.  13  :  3).  Solomon  is  intense  in  this  half-wild 
rhetoric.  He  speaks  of  the  Almighty,  "  I  saw  under  the 
sun  the  Place  of  Judgment,"  and  then  he  has  absolutely 
blinded   us   to   the   sense   by  saying    "  that  wickedness  was 


CHAPTER  III.  loi 

there  !  "  for  indeed  the  Orientals  were  not  afraid  of  such 
things  ;  "  and  the  Place  of  Righteousness  that  iniquity  was 
there."  Solomon  recovered  himself  by  saying,  "  God  shall 
judge"  (Ec.  3  :  17),  and  Paul  correspondingly  sdiys/' He  s/iall 
become  true "  (yivEoeu)  !  or,  as  the  next  clause  words  it, 
"  that  thou  may  est  be  made  righteous  in  thy  words  ^  and  triumph 
when  thou  art  judged'* 

Hort  and  Westcott  are  more  ornamental.  They  read 
viKfjaei^y  throwing  away  the  subjunctive  ;  "  That  thou 
mightest  be  made  righteous  in  thy  words,  and  then  "  (the  tuii 
is  quite  sufficient  for  that),  '^  thou  wilt  triumph  when  thou  art 
judged^  Their  authority,  being  only  A,  D,  N,  is  not  sufficient, 
however. 

So  much  for  one  of  the  intermediate  cavils  before  we  come 
to  the  more  important  matter  in  the  ninth  and  twentieth 
verses.     Now  for  another. 

If  sin  breeds  this  ''triumph,''  why  punish  it  ?  Paul  simply 
recites  this  sophistry,  and  leaves  the  answer  to  itself.  In  fact 
the  Jews  had  hurled  this  very  taunt  at  the  doctrine  of  the 
disciples  (v.  8). 

Let  us  translate  : — 

5.  But  if  our  unrighteousness  make  complete  the 
righteousness  of  God,  what  shall  we  say?  Is  God  un- 
righteous who  inflicts  the  wrath  ?  I  speak  as  a  man.  6.  Be 
it  not  so !  For  then  how  shall  God  judge  the  world  ? 
7.  Yet  if  the  truth  of  God  abounded  more  in  my  lie  to 
His  glory,  why  still  am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner?  8.  And 
why  not  (as  we  are  slanderously  charged,  and  as  some 
aflB.rm  that  we  say),  Let  us  do  the  evil  things  that  the 
good  things  may  come,  being  persons  whose  damnation 
is  just? 

"Our  unrighteousness."  The  manifest  subjective  char- 
acter of  this  ''unrighteousness"  shames  commentators  into  a 
Hke  subjectiveness  in  what  immediately  follows.  But  why  is 
this?  If  " the  righteousness  of  God"  is  forensic  almost 
every  where,  why  vacillate  ?  Fluctuations  under  a  theologir 
stress  are  the  bane  of  anti-Papal  interpretations.  "Make 
complete."     "Commend"  (E.  V.  «Jv:   Re.)    is  a   narrow  sense. 


I02  ROMANS. 

It  springs  in  this  way, — because  a  note  of  commendation  brings 
people  together.  The  wider  significance  is, — Cause  to  stand 
together  (as  though  the  verb  were  transitive,  see  Robinson). 
Hence  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  to  frame,  to  throw  into 
order,  to  "  complete  "  is  a  usual  sense.  The  passive  (Ang/ice) 
serves  as  a  translation  of  the  active  in  two  very  striking  texts  : 
They  are  the  following  : — *'  The  earth  framed  together  out  of 
the  water  and  by  means  of  the  water  "  (2  Peter  3:5);  "  And 
in  Him  "  (viz.,  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth),  "  all  things  were  framed 
together  "  (Col.  1:17).  In  Jesus  Christ,  originally  and  before 
He  was  born,  the  universe  was  framed  together,  so  that  with- 
out Him  it  would  have  been  useless  and  incomplete.  Paul 
borders  on  the  same  idea  in  respect  to  sin.  What  would 
"  truth  "  be  without  it  ?  The  devil  had  some  sparks  of  light 
in  the  very  darkness  of  the  "tree  of  knowledge  (Gen.  3:5). 
^^  Made  complete;''  not  absolutely.  ^^  Made  righteous''  {y.  4), 
rhetorically  or  declaratively  so,  just  as  "  co7?ie  to  be  true  "  (v.  4)  is 
not  to  be  taken  absolutely,  but  in  the  way  we  have  already 
explained.  The  belles-lettres  sense  is  perfectly  intelligible, 
and  means  an  abounding  or  welling  over  {Trepiaaevu)  in  a 
way,  man-ward,  thoroughly  evincive  of  "  His  glory."  "  What 
shall  we  say"  then?  "Is  God  unrighteous  who  inflicts 
the  wrath?"  Never!  Paul  retorts;  for  then,  if  that  be 
dreamed,  universal  monarchy  is  at  an  end.  But  the  cavil 
presses,  Why  ?  Explain  the  difficulty.  "  If  the  truth  of  God 
abounded  more  in  my  lie  to  His  glory,  why  still  am  I  also 
judged  as  a  sinner?"  With  startling  summariness  Paul 
manages  the  challenge  thus  : — If  men  really  sin,  they  must  be 
punished,  or  else  what  governs  the  world  ?  (v.  6).  If  sin 
"  completes  "  the  Almighty  in  the  sense  of  His  largest  ^^  glory," 
either  this  must  be  a  mere  incident,  and  men  go  on  to  be 
punished,  which  is  what  the  apostle  would  aver,  or  else  sin  is 
no  sin  at  all.  We  are  to  esteem  it  very  highly  in  love  for  its 
work's  sake  ;  and  Paul  evolves  the  consequence  in  so  dis- 
gusting a  shape  as  to  need  no  further  setting  back. 

This  argument  is  good  enough  if  moderns  would  leave  the 
conditions  of  it  alone.     But,  unfortunately,  things  more  dis- 


CHAPTER  III.  103 

gusting  than  Paul  would  use  to  drive  us  back  are  put  into  the 
very  bosom  of  God's  Providence.  Under  such  treatment 
Paul's  appeal  perishes.  That  God  damns  the  wicked  for  dis- 
play, silences  all  appeal  to  mere  disgust  on  the  other  side. 
Better  no  punishment  than  such  a  punishment  as  that.  Nor 
has  there  been  the  least  reason  for  such  a  gloss.  That  God 
builds  Tophet  for  "  His  glory  "  is  true,  so  long  as  we  give 
"■glory'''  its  literal  sense  of  weight  or  excellence.  That  He 
punishes  the  wicked  to  do  right,  a  little  child  might 
accept  as  sufficiently  complete.  That  He  even  curses  the 
wicked  for  display  is  true,  if  we  make  the  end  inter- 
mediate and  secondary  (Ps.  79  :  9  ;  Rom.  9  :  23;  2  Cor. 
3  :  18)  ;  but  that  He  torments  the  wicked  simply  to  exhibit 
anything ;  or  to  state  it  in  theologic  phrase,  that  His  chief  end 
is  to  glorify  Himself,  is  horrible,  and  might  well  defy  disgust 
at  no  punishment  at  all  as  a  mere  platitude  on  the  part  of  the 
apostle.  Such  thoughts  have  been  a  brutal  trait  in  Reformed 
theology.  A  certain  Providence  is  right.  It  may  be  boldly 
.said  that  there  is  but  one  such  Providence  for  all  the  universe. 
God  has  spied  it  out.  Part  of  this  Providence  is  Hell.  God 
builds  Hell  in  spite  of  His  pity.  But  His  motive  is  simply 
right  (fJ/zc;/).  A  lesser  end  may  be  to  display  all  this  :  and 
why?  Because  ^''therein  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed." 
Making  ''the  wrath  descend''  is  a  necessary  discipline.  All 
this  is  true.  But  when,  untying  from  the  main  idea  that  the 
thing  is  right,  we  make  the  main  idea  to  be  the  display, — shame 
upon  such  a  following  of  the  Almighty.  Philosophers  laugh 
at  it  (Mill,  Ex.  of  Ham.,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  i,  p.  221),  and  justly 
denounce  it,  and  only  unjustly  when  they  do  as  we  do,  and  call 
any  such  thing  divine.  We  make  the  enemies  of  God  to  blas- 
pheme. To  show  God's  own  ''glory"  illustratively  to  be  the  end 
of  His  creation  is  to  brutalize  His  work,  and  to  forget  His  glory 
itself,  I  mean  His  unspeakable  ''righteousness." 

9.  Why  then  do  we  not  win  the  advantage  for  ourselves 
all  together?  for  we  laid  it  down  as  the  pre-occasion,  that 
both  Jews  and  Greeks  are  all  under  sin;  10.  As  it  has 
been  written, 


I04  ROMANS. 

There  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one. 

11.  There  is  none  who  understands,  there  is  none  who 

seeks  diligently  after  God. 

12.  They  have  all  turned  aside;   they  are  together  be- 

come useless ; 
There  is  none  that  does  useful   things ;  no,  not   so 
much  as  one. 

13.  Their  throat  is  an  open  sepulchre ; 

With  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit ; 
The  poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips. 

14.  Whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness. 

15.  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood. 

16.  Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways ; 

17.  And  a  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known. 

18.  There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes. 

19.  But  we  know  that  what  things  the  law  says  it  speaks 
to  those  who  are  under  the  law,  that  every  mouth  may 
be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  come  under  penalty  to 
God.  20.  Because  by  works  of  law  shall  no  flesh  be  made 
righteous  in  His  sight ;  for  by  law  is  the  fuller  knowl- 
edge of  sin. 

This  whole  chapter  has  been  beset  with  riddles.  Dr.  Hodge 
far  back  in  its  paragraphs,  stops  at  a  certain  text  and  com- 
plains, "  This  verse  is  very  difficult  "  (v.  3).  Upoexdjueda  (v.  9)  in 
the  track  of  the  expositors,  looks  like  a  spot  in  the  road  where 
a  hay  wagon  has  been  overturned,  muddied  with  feet  and  lit- 
tered with  the  hay  that  has  run  to  waste.  Our  English  Ver- 
sion has  it,  ^' Are  we  better V  and  supplies  '•'■  than  they"  to 
promote  the  sense.  The  Revision  is  just  the  opposite  !  "  Are 
we  in  worse  case  than  they  ?  "  Wetstein  reads,  ''  Are  we  sur- 
passed "  (by  the  Jews)  ?  (Ecumenius,  "  Are  we  surpassed  " 
(by  the  Gentiles)  ?  Reiche,  "  Are  we  preferred  "  (by  God)  ? 
Wahl,  "What  can  we  bring  forward"  (as  excuse)?  Godet, 
"Are  we  sheltered?"  Kindred  trouble  surrounds  oi;  Trdvrwf 
{'^  No,  in  jwivise,''  E.  V.  and  Re.).  Van  Hengel,  says  Winer 
(Am.  Ed.,  p.  555),  "  despaired,"  etc.,  and  concluded  there  must 
be  unnoted  corruption  textually.  "  Meyer  even  finds  himself 
obliged  to  abandon  his  philological  rigorism  "  (so  says  Godet 
ifi  loco),  and  is  actually  driven  to  a  "second  "  and  scarce  de- 
fensible sense.     When  such  things  occur,  one  maxim  all  will 


CHAPTER  III.  105 

encourage — to  abandon  speculation,  and  come  right  down  to 
the  letter  of  the  Greek.  What  does  it  radically  mean  ? 
YLpotxoii-t^o-  '•  what  is  that  ?  It  occurs  but  once  in  the  Testament, 
and  is  made  up  of  npo  and  ixcj-  Upo  means  before^  and  t;j;£j  means 
to  hold  or  have.  If  a  man  uses  a  shield,  it  is  proper  to  say,  Hi 
holds  it  before^  -Kpokxti.  This  word  is  either  passive  or  middle. 
We  can  take  our  choice.  If  middle,  it  means,  We  hold  our- 
selves before  or  get  ourselves  into  the  advance.  How  could  we 
come  more  honestly  by  a  sufficient  meanin^^  ?  "  Wliy  then  do  we 
not  get  ourselves  into  the  advance,''  or  "  win  for  ourselves  the  ad- 
vantage?" Let  us  trace  the  grammar  first,  and  Paul  after- 
ward. That  is  a  safe  course,  and  will  have  the  prevailing  right 
over  different  expositions,  oi;  Trdvrwf  never  means  '' not  at  all.*' 
If  it  does,  show  the  instance.  ndvTu^ov  would  be  that,  and 
would  give  us  the  right  for  "  No,  in  no  wise  "  (E.  V.  and  Re.). 
Ov  Trdvv  has  been  thought  to  give  a  color  that  way  in  a  certain 
passage  (see  Meyer),  but  even  there  there  may  be  supposed 
an  irony  (see  Schoemann,  ad  Is.,  p.  276),  just  as  JVot  quite  ! 
is  an  ironical  stroke  for  saying  Never  !  So  then,  according  to 
the  Greek,  ov  ttovtuc  must,  in  some  fashion,  be  woven  in  as  mean- 
ing not  all  together.  But  how  can  that  be  done  ?  Meyer,  in 
excuse  for  the  violence  that  he  confesses,  holds  out  that  it 
cannot  be.  But  let  us  look  at  that.  What  if,  as  in  many 
such  cases,  the  tabooed  idea  should  be  proved  to  be  the  very 
best? 

What  has  Paul  been  speaking  of  ?  He  has  begun  with  the 
question,  *'  What  advantage  hath  the  Jew,  and  luhat  profit  is  there 
€f  circumcision  ?  "  (E.  V.,  v.  i).  The  reply  is,  *'  Much  every  ivay." 
Then  the  specification  of  the  "  advantage  " — that  the  "  oracles,'' 
of  course  including  the  gospel,  made  many  Jewish  believers. 
Then  comes  the  cavil.  What  if  some  did  not  believe  ?  And 
then,  built  up  upon  that,  that  other  cavil.  If,  not  believing,  they 
glorified  God,  why  punish  ?  Paul  cuts  his  way  through  all 
this  jungle,  and  comes  out  upon  a  still  higher  inquiry.  What 
higher  inquiry  could  there  naturally  be  ?  Repeating  nothing, 
such  as  by  saying,  ''  Are  we  better  than  they  ?  "  (E.  V.,  Behlen), 
and  confusing  nothing,  such  as  by  saying,  "  Not  at  all  "  (E.  V.) 


ro6  ROMANS. 

to  the  question  "  Are  we  better?"'  (E.  V.),  or  to  the  question, 
"  Are  we  worse  ?  "  (Re.),  or  to  the  question,  "  Do  we  surpass  ?  " 
(De  Wette,  Alford),  when  he  had  said  already,  We  had  an 
''^  advantage r  and  described  it  as  ''much  every  way,''  a  question 
arises  which  no  exegete  seems  to  have  noticed,  viz.,  Why,  if 
all  are  sinners,  "Jews  and  Greeks,"  and  one  of  these  classes, 
viz.,  Jews,  have  the  enormous  "  advantage "  of  possessing 
"the  law,"  and  of  having  that  ''law  "  include  "  the  gospel;  " 
and,  furthermore,  of  having  that  ^^j-/»^/  thundered  out  on  Sinai, 
and  of  having  it  impressed  by  painful  ceremonials,  why,  when 
many  helped  themselves  forward  (Trpoexofiat)  unto  life,  or, 
as  Paul  expressed  it,  "  the  oracles  were  believed"  (v.  2),  did  not 
all  help  themselves  forward?  or,  returning  to  the  Greek, 
"  Why  then  do  we  not  win  the  advantage  for  ourselves  all 
together?"  Paul  is  going  to  make  this  attack  all  the 
intricacies  of  salvation.  He  throws  into  a  parenthesis, 
(vs.  9-18)  what  will  make  it  stand  naked.  We  all  start  fresh, 
'■''  Jews  and  Greeks y  We  all  start  sinners,  utterly  condemned. 
The  Jews  have  the  law  which  includes  the  gospel.  Millions 
^'believed''  and  snatched  an  "advantage  great  every  way." 
Now  why  did  not  all  believe  ?  that  is  the  point  of  the  pas- 
sage. Having  the  same  blessed  "law"  why  did  it  not  convert 
everybody?  It  is  a  question  for  all  time.  And  what  was 
there  to  blunt  its  edge,  or  to  make  it  diverse,  or  to  make  it 
partial,  or  to  keep  it  back  from  the  uniformity  that  "  all 
(should  obey)  the  gospel  (10:16)?"  "Because"  (the 
reply  afterwards  gives  the  solution)  "  out  of  works  of  law 
shall  no  flesh  be  made  righteous  "  (v.  20). 

Here  a  wonderful  confirmation  is  found  in  616x1  ;  though 
again  comes  up  a  struggle  of  the  commentators.  ^l6rL  is 
never  illative  in  the  indirect  sense.  The  sequence  "Therefore  " 
has  marred  the  passage  (E.  V.).  The  linguists  stop  and  look 
at  this  (Alford,  Meyer),  as  Meyer  stopped  and  looked  at 
ov  TrdvTcjg  (3  :  9)  ;  and  when  the  Revisionists  amend,  and 
translate  " because"  and  reduce  this  verse  to  a  confirmation 
of  the  last,  they  not  only  daze  the  reader  by  an  imperfect 
sense,    but  they    discredit    Paul  ;    for    so   great   a  dialecti- 


CHAPTER  III. 


107 


cian  would  hardly  enter  so    grand    a  sentence    by  so   side    a 
door. 

Throw  out  the  poem  (which,  by  the  way,  is  shaped  into  one 
mainly  by  Paul),  and  throw  out  the  remark  (v.  19),  that 
essential  parts  of  it,  being  from  the  law  (Ps.  5  :  9  ;  10:7;  14  ; 
36  ;  53  ;  140;  Isa.  59  :  7,  8),  were  meant  for  "those  under 
the  law,"  and  we  have  this  grandest  answer  to  an  emphatic 
text,  ''  Why  then  do  we  not  win  the  advanta^s^e  for  ourselves  all 
together  ?  Because,  out  of  works  of  laiu  shall  no  flesh  be  made 
righteous  in  his  sight."  '''■  No  fiesh."  Alford  makes  something 
of  the  fact  that  the  Greek  reads  "  all  fiesh.'"  ''  Out  of  luorks 
of  law  all  flesh  shall  not  be  justified,''  i.e.,  as  he  expresses  it, 
All  flesh  are  in  the  condition  not  justified.  But  there  seems  no 
value  in  this,  for  the  Hebraism  that  lodges  this  in  the  Greek 
has  no  such  particularity  (Mar.  13  :  20  ;  i  Cor.  i  :  29).  We 
may  notice  however  how  the  word  "(z//,"  starting  from  the 
ninth,  besets  all  the  verses.  "-Flesh.''  It  does  not  say  spirit. 
For  the  conscience  (spirit)  of  a  man,  left  to  itself  with  the 
gospel,  would  turn  to  it  at  once.  ''Made  righteous."  We 
need  add  nothing  more.  ''Made"  d^oXwdWy  "  righteous"  in 
that  incipient  degree  which  makes  up  in  its  very  nature  as  love 
(Matt.  22  :  40)  the  differentia  of  saving  faith. 

Rut  now  we  arrive  at  the  new  phrase.  Only  Paul  uses  it.  He 
has  used  it  before,  but  in  the  singular  number,  "  Who  exhibit 
within  the  ivork  of  the  laiv  written  in  their  hearts  "(2:15).  He 
uses  it  nine  more  times,  and  always  in  the  plural  ;  and  he  uses 
it  only  in  two  of  his  epistles,  and  we  can  quote  him  easily  in 
every  instance.  The  first  three  cases  are  from  this  same 
epistle.  *'  We  reckon  that  a  man  is  made  righteous  by  faith, 
aside  from  works  of  law  "  (3  :  28).  "■  Not  by  faith,  but,  as  it 
were,  by  works  of  law  "  (9  :  32).  (Here  law  is  thrown  out  by 
the  Revisionists).  Three  of  the  remaining  cases  are  in  one 
verse  to  the  Galatians,  "  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  made 
righteous  by  works  of  law  except  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  we 
also  believed  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  we  might  be  made  righteous 
by  faith  in  Christ,  and  not  by  works  of  law  ;  for  by  works  of 
law    shall    no    flesh    be    made    righteous"    (Gal.     2    :    16). 


io8  ROMANS. 

"  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by  works  of  law,  or  by  hearing  of 
faith  ?  "  (Gal.  3  :  2).  "  He,  therefore,  that  ministereth  to  you 
the  Spirit,  and  creates  active  powers  in  you,  doeth  he  it  by 
works  of  law,  or  by  hearing  of  faith  ?  "  (Gal.  3  :  5).  "  As  many 
as  are  by  works  of  law  are  under  a  curse"  (Gal.  3  :  10).  If 
we  can  find  out  distinctly  what  "  works  of  law "  mean,  we 
have  greatly  promoted  our  entire  exposition. 

What  do  works  of  light  mean  ?  There  is  no  such  scripture  ; 
but  what  would  it  naturally  mean  ?  Works  begotten  from  a 
man  by  moral  light.  "Works  of  darkness"  (13:  12)  are 
works  that  darkness  sets  forth  from  its  seat  in  our  nature. 
"  The  work  of  faith  and  labor  of  love"  (i  Thess.  i  :  3)  are  the 
literal  thing,  what  faith  works  and  what  love  works.  "  The 
works  of  the  flesh  "  (Gal.  5:19)  are  the  like  ;  and  so,  "  of 
God  "  (Jo.  6  :  28,  29),  and  "  of  the  Devil  "  (i  Jo.  3  :  8).  They 
are  works  which  a  man  does,  but  which  no  other  principle  or 
power  or  part  of  him  does  than  that  of  which  they  are  said  to 
be  the  works.  "  The  old  man  and  his  works"  (Eph.  4  :  22),  "and 
the  works  of  the  body"  (8:  13),  are  of  a  like  significance. 
There  is  a  wonderful  unanimity  ;  and  therefore  the  analogy 
is  entire  by  which  ^'' the  works  of  the  law''  distinctly  arise 
into  our  view.  What  "the  old  man  "  can  do  when  it  is  all  that 
one  has  ;  what "  the  body"  can  do  when  it  masters  "  the  spirit  "  ; 
what  the  Devil  can  do  when  he  reigns  ;  or  God  has  done  when 
we  believe  ;  what  "  darkness  "  or  "  faith  "  or  "  flesh  "  or  "  love  " 
can  be  said  to  do  when  man  acts  under  their  influence  ;  that 
"/^2£/"can  be  said  to  do  or  to  have  as  \\.^^^ works''  \i  the 
thunder  and  imprint  of  the  law  is  all  that  one  has  to  depend 
upon  to  cleanse  him  or  make  him  righteous.  This  is  a  critical 
sentence.  When  profoundly  seated  in  a  man,  as  "  law  "  was 
with  the  Jew,  and  when  warmly  boasted  of  by  the  man,  as 
Paul  was  quick  to  picture  (2  :  17)  ;  when  thoroughly  under- 
stood by  the  man,  as  it  critically  was  ;  and  made  to  take  in  the 
gospel,  as  it  undoubtedly  did  ;  if  it  and  nothing  more  gracious 
inspired  its  ^' works,"  then  by  ^'works  of  law  shall  no  flesh  be 
made  righteous."  It  is  repeating  only  in  different  phrase  that 
about  "  the  letter  and  the  spirit "  (2  :  29). 


CHAPTER  III.  109 

But  let  me  be  distinctly  understood.  Faith  is  incipient 
holiness.  I  hold  that  ''law''  cannot  produce  faith  as  one  of 
its  'works:*  And  I  hold  that  it  can  produce  nothing,  as 
♦Might  '•  can,  and  ''faith  "  can,  and  "love  "  can,  and  as  the 
Giver  of  all  these,  viz.,  God  can,  except  that  which  is  abreast 
of  itself,  viz.  "knowledge;"  and  though  I  have  all  "  knowl- 
edge,"  as  Paul  says,  '*  1  am  nothing"  (i  Cor.  13  :  2).  Men 
cannot  be  taught  righteousness.  Therefore  the  "  work  of  the 
taw"  is  only  a  higher  responsibility,  or,  as  I'aul  declares  it, 
**the"  kniyvuat^  (v.  2o),  or  higher  "knowledge  of  sin." 

Going  back  therefore  to  our  passage,  each  te.xt  lies  in 
smooth  consistency  with  this  significance.  The  great  end  of 
religion  is  to  "  make  (men)  righteous."  For  this,  Christ  was 
raised  up.  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
(holiness)  to  everyone  that  believeth  "  (10:  4).  His  very 
name  is  the  token  of  His  work,  viz.,  to  "save  His  people//w// 
their  sins."  Now,  the  distinctions  we  are  aiming  to  establish 
can  perhaps  be  additionally  noted  by  a  return  to  the  "cove- 
nants." The  "  old  covenant,"  was  full  of  the  gospel.  It 
contained  nothing  else.  It  was  the  gospel  entire,  because  it 
was  built  upon  a  redemption  entirely  achieved.  Its  watch- 
word was,  "  Do  this  and  thou  shalt  live  "  (Lu.  10  :  28).  And 
what  the  sinner  was  to  do,  was,  not  to  keep  the  whole  law. 
He  was  "a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law"  (Gal.  5  :  3)  only  if 
he  broke  the  covenant.  It  was  indeed  said,  "  Cursed  is  every 
one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law  to  do  them  "  (Gal.  3  :  10)  ;  but  that  is  said  .still.  In  the 
eye  of  grace  that  is  still  demanded.  We  are  to  repent  of  "  all  " 
sin,  and  obey  "  all  "  righteousnesses  ;  not  perfectly  :  that  is 
never  said  :  but  incipiently.  We  are  to  be  born  again.  The 
change  was  to  reach  all  our  faculties.  And  what  the  old 
covenant  did  was  to  thunder  that  out.  Along  with  the  deca- 
logue, and  as  a  needed  part  of  it,  was  this — "  Believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  "  (Acts  16  :  31). 
No  statute  breathed  fiercer  (Jo.  16:9;  ^^^^-  ^^  :  16).  And 
what  was  the  "  new  covenant  ?  "  Something  more  than  the 
"new  song"  (Rev.  5  :  9),   and    better   than   the  "new  com- 


no  ROM  AX S. 

mandment  "  (i  Jo.  2  :  8),  or  the  '*  new  wine  "  (Matt.  26  :  29)  ; 
for  those  were  brighter  and  better  instances  of  a  thing  with 
no  advance  upon  its  nature.  But  the  '*  new  covenant  "  had  as 
precise  a  difference  as  we  can  imagine.  It  was  the  ''old 
covenant  ''plus  grace  to  obey  it.  Not  a  shred  more  did  it  pos- 
sess. Honesty  was  complete  in  either.  Grace  was  the  founda- 
tion of  both.  The  '•  old  "  had  sufficient  for  its  maintenance, 
for  it  had  provided  that  Christ  should  die.  It  lacked  but  one 
thing,  not  to  make  it  honest,  but  to  make  it  sen-iceabie.  and 
for  that  lack  it  "  gendered  to  bondage  "  (Gal.  4  :  24).  Not 
one  Israelite  employed  it,  and  all  who  were  saved  stepped 
over  into  that  other  ''  covenant,"  which  is  the  sole  dependency 
of  ungodly  men.  Now  let  Jeremiah  describe  that  needful 
difference.  '*  I  will  make  a  new  covenant ;  not  according  to 
the  covenant  I  made  with  their  fathers,  which  my  covenant 
they  brake  ;  but  this  shall  be  the  covenant,  I  will  put  my  law 
in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and  will  be 
their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people"  (Jer.  31  :  t,2,  ^2>  ■ 
Paul  speaks  of  them  (Gal.  3  :  16  ;  Heb.  8  :  6),  as  both  having 
**  promises,"  the  *'  old  covenant  "  kv  ypdufian  ('*  in  letter,"  2  Cor. 
3  :  6).  He  elaborates  Jeremiah,  and  makes  him  plainer.  The 
"  old  covenant  ;  "  was  the  whole  gospel  with  one  thing  yet  to  be 
supplied, — power  to  keep  it.  The  ''  new  covenant "  was  all 
the  "  old  "  with  the  fatal  necessity  supplied,  not,  now,  that 
there  were  such  formal  "  covenants  "  in  different  periods  of 
time,  but  that  this  was  the  rhetoric  of  grace  intended  to 
describe  just  the  points  that  we  would  now  make  clear. 
"  Works  of  law  "  are  what  could  be  accomplished  by  *'  the 
old  covenant,"  in  point  of  grace  just  nothing  at  all.  Nay, 
more  comprehensive  than  that,  for  '^  works  of  law''  differ 
from  th€  works  of  the  law  ;  for  this  latter  would  include  the 
gospel.  But  the  former  might  never  hear  of  Sinai  ;  and  as 
Paul  includes  ''  Greeks  "  as  well  as  "  Jews  "  his  sentence  is 
universal.  No  light  of  law  without  grace  to  "  write  it  on  the 
heart "  is  any  more  than  ypauua  (letter),  and  cannot  reach 
ev  T(D  Kpvrrru  (2  :  29)  into  the  inward  spirit. 

Now  let   us   survey  the  instances  (the  ten  given   above). 


CHAPTER  III.  Ill 

"  WJio  exhibit  within  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts  " 
(2:  15).  That  is  plain  enough.  It  is  the  picture  of  poor  Gen- 
tiles who,  when  favored  Jews  could  not  be  "  made  righteous 
by  works  of  law,"  because  nobody  can,  are  "  made  righteous  " 
as  ''  doers  of  laiu'^  (2  :  13)  through  rare  grace  in  having  ''the 
work  of  the  law''  (that  is,  just  such  work  as  ''the  law"  which 
they  had  never  heard  of,  by  grace  produces)  '*  written,"  just 
as  Jeremiah  describes,  "  inwardly "  upon  the  heart.  Hence 
the  importance  of  that  word  "except''  (Gal.  2  :  16),  which  was 
so  long  omitted.  That  was  a  rare  wrong  in  exegesis.  It  occurs 
fifty-nine  times  in  the  N.  T.,  that  expression  khv  uij^  and 
always  means  except.  Lo,  for  two  centuries  and  over,  it  has 
stood  "but'"  (E.  V.)  in  an  important  sentence.  The  Revision- 
ists restore  it,  but  timidly,  "  A  man  is  not  justified  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  save  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ"  (Re.). 
Why  not  say  boldly  "except,"  and  not  put  "  but  only''  in  the 
margin,*  especially  as  iav  ^ii  nrcer  means  "  but  only  i  "  "  A  man 
is  not  made  righteous  by  works  of  law,  except  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ."  That  is.  "law,"  even  if  it  include  the  gospel,  never 
can  convert  a  man  unless  *'  mixed  with  faith  in  them  that  hear 
it"  (Heb.  4:  2  :  for  "the  letter  killeth  "  (2  Cor.  3:  6).  But 
when  its  works  are  written  on  the  heart  "  (2  :  15),  then  a  man 
is  converted,  and  that  covers  the  exception  in  the  text.  "  except 
by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  "  (Gal.  2  :   16). 

The  remaining  te.xts  in  Romans  we  will  leave  till  we  reach 
them.  In  Galatians  we  have  what  is  appended  to  the  last 
treated  sentence  :  *'  That  we  might  be  made  righteous  by  faith 
in  Christ,  and  not  by  works  of  law  "  (of  course,  from  what  we 
have  already  seen)  ;  "for  by  works  of  law"  (repeating  the 
sentence  that  we  are  now  discussing),  "  shall  no  flesh  be  made 
righteous  "  (Gal.  2  :  16).  "  As  many  as  are  by  works  of  law  " 
(that  is,  as  many  as  are  what  they  are  by  what  works  unaided 
law  can  work  in  them'  "  are  under  a  curse  "  (Gal.  3  :  10):  and 
who  doubts  it  ?  or  who  doubts  a  still  heavier  curse,   if  that 


*  Our  American  committee  favored  the  retention  of  ""but"  (E.  V.).  and 
requested  it  to  be  marked  in  their  exceptions  to  the  work  of  the  British  ! 
(See  .\ppendi.x,  Re.). 


112  ROMANS. 

"  law  "  happen  to  include  the  gospel  (Ps.  8i  :  7-13  ;  105  :  i-io  ; 
Jo,  15  :  22)  ;  for  the  "gospel"  must  be  made  ''the  power  of 
G^^^,"  and  has  been  so  made  by  ''effectual  calling"  to  every 
one  that  believes  (i  :  16).  Then  follow  two  sentences  which 
seem  to  settle  the  whole  thing.  "  Received  ye  the  Spirit " 
(what  has  that  to  do  with  Lutheran  ''  jiistificatioji "  modernly 
so  called  ? ).  "  Received  ye  the  Spirit  "  (what  is  that  but, 
Were  ye  made  holy,  righteous)  ;  or,  sweeping  in  the  next  in- 
stance, "  He  that  ministereth  to  you  the  Spirit,  etc.,  etc.,  (doeth 
He  it,  E.  V.)  by  works  of  law  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  "  (Gal. 
3  :  2,  5)?  These  are  all  the  cases  in  the  Bible  of  that  Pauline 
expression. 

Now  to  resume.  "  Laid  it  down  as  a  pre-occasion."  This 
is  an  aorist.  The  tt^cJ  does  not  refer  to  what  "  we  before  "(Re.,  see 
also  E.  V.)  did,  but  to  the  condition  or  occasiofi  or,  if  we  please, 
accusation  precedent^  which  makes  us  all  alike.  If  out  of  this 
dead  level  of  condemnation  {hvdiKoq),  many  who  had  the  law 
escaped,  why  did  not  all  ?  "Written."  Well,  much  of  this 
was  never  written  before,  but,  "  as  it  has  been  written," — 
that  is  true  literally.  "  Seeks  "  (v.  11).  The  H  before  c^yrdh; 
ought  to  have  its  influence  ;  for  many  do  ''seek  "  (Lu.  13  :  24) 
who  do  not  .f^^/^  "diligently."  Paul  is  full  of  such  delicate 
particularities.  "  Useless.  "  Bentham,  if  he  would  supply  a 
moral  sense,  would  be  a  good  measurer  of  piety  (Matt.  13  :  23  ; 
I  Jo.  3  :  7).  See  "  useful  things  "  just  afterwards.  "  Blood  " 
(v.  15).  Two  reasons  account  for  this  strong  language,  first,  that 
the  most  modest  sin  as  measured  by  human  eye,  in  the  divine  eye 
is  cruel  (Ps.  90  :  11  ;  Prov.  12  :  10  ;  Hab.  i  :  13),  and  second, 
that  these  are  the  reaches  to  which  sin  will  advance,  and  to 
which  it  is  constantly  arriving  even  in  this  world.  "Under 
penalty."  ("EvcJ^/cof,  v  :  19)  ;  a  word  but  once  used  by  Paul. 
"By"  (v.  20).  It  might  be  stronger  to  say  " fro7n''  or  "out 
of  J'  for  the  word  is  ek,  not  d^d,  and  in  all  cases  the  difference  is 
intentional  (i:  17;  3:  30;  4:16;  i  Cor.  8:6);  but  trans- 
lators avoid  changing,  because  the  words  might  be  ambiguous. 
If  I  say  "  fnade  righteous  from  works  "  it  jingles  sadly  like  away 
//'^;«  works,  and   if  I  say  ^z^/ ^/,  that  sounds  like  aside  from. 


CHAPTER  III.  113 

Let  it  be  only  understood  that  U  means  that  a  man  can 
not  even  begin  a  holiness  ^«/ ^  such  '''works''  as  ''law'''  by 
itself  can  inspire. 

21.  But  now,  aside  from  law,  the  righteousness  of  God 
has  been  manifested,  being  borne  witness  to  by  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  22.  But  the  righteousness  of  God  by- 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  them  that  believe,  for  there 
is  no  difference;  23.  For  all  sinned,  and  are  short  of  the 
glory  of  God,  24.  Being  made  righteous  as  a  gift  by  His 
grace,  through  the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus ; 

"  But  now."  Always,  indeed,  "  but  now  "  with  a  manifcstness 
giving  less  room  for  mistake.  "Aside  from  law."  "Right- 
eousness" never  can  be  aside  from  law"  in  most  senses,  for 
one  is  but  the  fulfilment  of  the  other  ;  but  that  great  light  of 
"  righteousness  "  in  the  soul  of  a  sinner  has  to  be  revealed  by  God, 
and  can  never  be  revealed  by  "law."  Our  task  is  becoming 
easier,  for  this  is  but  a  repetition  of  another  sentence  (i  :  17, 
see  comments).  "Manifested;"  equivalent  to  *'  revealed"  as 
above  (i  :  17).  "The  law  and  the  prophets."  Here,  at 
length,  our  idea  is  caught  up.  "  The  law  "  (not  anarthrous) 
includes  the  gospel.  "Borne  witness  to  by."  The  gospel 
{scripturce  omnes)  cannot  save,  but  it  can  bear  witness  to  itself, 
and  becomes  the  instrument  of  saving  by  ''  the pim>er  of  God" 
(i  :  16).  "But"  (v.  22).  We  must  not  neglect  the  6i. 
"  The  righteousness  of  God"  is  very  little  "  manifested "  even 
to  (df)  the  very  most  eminent  saints.  Therefore  Paul 
qualifies,  and  interposes  "  luit"  and  repeats  a  part  of  his 
sentence.  "  The  righteousness  of  God  (is)  manifested"  and  that 
is  our  inward  light  ;  "  hut"  it  is  alas  !  a  faint  manifestation. 
It  is  "  the  righteousness  of  God  "  (and  how  well  this  one  of 
the  ten  cases  (i  :  17)  agrees  with  "  moral  exeellenee  "  !)  through 
that  weak  thing,  "faith."  And  the  manifestation  is  not  made 
zK  vouov,  though,  indeed,  it  takes  "  the  la7u "  in  its  most 
extensive  sense  to  preach  and  teach  it;  but  it  is  made  "  through 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ ; "  and  it  is  made  to  whom  ?  not  to 
"  all"  which  was  the  point  of  the  apostle's  question  (v.  9),  but 
"to  all  them  that  believe."      And   here   Paul    repeats  his 


114  ROMANS. 

'' pre-occasion''    (vs.    9-18),— "for  there  is  no   difference.'* 

But  still  he  has  not  quite  answered.  "  To  all  that  believe  V 
Yes  ;  but  that  is  the  very  question.  "  To  all  that  believed 
Yes  ;  but  what  makes  them  "  believe  ?  "  ''  What  advajitage 
hath  the  Jew  ?  "  Why,  that  many  believed  (v.  2).  But  this 
question  has  come  since  : — Why  do  we  not  all  win  for  our- 
selves the  blessing?  (v.  9).  The  gist  of  the  rejoinder,  there- 
fore, is  in  the  Greek  that  follows,—"  Being  made  righteous 
as  a  gift  by  His  grace  through  the  redemption  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus."  /'  Freely  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  might  have  other 
meanings  than  dupehv,  which  means  simply  after  the 
manner  of  a.  Soypov  {''  gift ") .  Here  then  is  an  unbounded 
answer.  *'  JVhy  do  we  not  all  get  forward  1  "  (v.  9).  For 
a  most  obvious  account.  "  Getting  forward  is  a  gift.''  "  What 
the  law  "  (with  the  gospel  in  it,  vs.  21,  22)  "  could  not  do,  in 
that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,"  God  chose  to  do  ;  and  He 
does  it  under  fixed  rules.  And  He  does  it  not  wilfully  (9  :  16), 
or  sovereignly  (9  :  15),  or,  as  the  last  teleology  of  the  case,  to 
display  his  glory  (see  com.  on  C.  9),  but  He  does  it  ex  neces- 
sitate rei,  from  the  fiat  of  what  is  right ;  and  He  does  it,  not 
according  to  the  geography  of  the  law,  but  hither  and  thither 
as  He  may,  for  both  ''Jews  ajid  Greeks."  "For  all  have 
sinned."  That  is  the  condition-precedent  of  which  He  has 
already  spoken  (v.  9).  All  start  equally  there.  *And  are 
short."  All  sin  is  a  deficiency.  The  command  is,  Thou 
shalt  love  .God,  and.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor.  Even 
devils  have  the  obscure  remainders  of  these  affections.  But 
they  are  to  be  perfect.  We  are  to  love  God  with  all  our 
powers,  and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves.  He  that  is  ''  short  " 
by  nature  is  an  apostate.  Now  "  the  glory  of  God,"  or,  as 
the  Hebrew  meant.  His  weight  or  His  excellency,  is  the  norm 
of  all  our  righteousness.  Conversion  consists  in  revealing  this 
excellency  to  us  inwardly  by  the  Spirit  (i  :  17).  But  perfectly 
it  is  never  revealed  in  this  world.  ''  In  glory,"  as  we  call  it, 
*'  we  shall  be  like  Him,  for  we  shall  see  Him  as  He  is."  But 
here  there  is  an  ivdu^iq  (showing)  of  "  God's  righteousness," 
that  is,  His  moral  excellence  (see  the  next  two  verses),  and 


CHAPTER  III.  115 

that,  along  with  its  recognition  of  the  Redeemer,  is  called 
''faith  ;  "  but  the  whole  is  very  imperfect.  All  men  in  this 
world  are  still  sinning,  "  ami  are  short  of  the  glory  "  (that  is  the 
full  holiness)  '^  of  God;''  ''being  made  righteous^''  that  is 
incipiently  or  germinally  so,  ''as  a  gift  by  His  grace  through 
the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  ''  Redemption."  No 
word  has  been  emasculated  more  than  this  by  the  labors  of 
our  Protestant  Reformers.  P'ifteen  hundred  years  made  it  the 
great  feature  of  the  gospel  ;  rightfully  so  ;  for  the  Bible  makes 
it  the  whole  of  our  forensic  safety.  Augustine  knew  no  other  ; 
nor  Chrysostom,  nor  Bernard,  nor  Anselm,  nor  the  whole  host 
of  ante-Lutheran  theologers.  This  is  a  marvel  of  fact,  that 
fifteen  centuries  should  have  read  the  Bible  with  precision  in  a 
certain  way,  and  then  that  a  German  monk  should  suddenly 
change  it,  and  the  world  be  so  little  sensitive  to  the  change 
that  had  been  made.  Before,  "  redemption  "  was  every  thing  ; 
and  articulately  just  here,  let  it  be  said  what  "  redemption  "  was. 
Men  had  sinned.  The  curse  of  sin  is  death.  Death  means 
incurable  sinfulness.  There  are  added  ideas  of  torment ;  but 
those  are  consequential  and  administrative.  The  head  curse 
is  continued  sinfulness.  The  devils,  falling  into  the  same 
estate,  realize  the  incurable  malignity.  But,  for  reasons  of 
which  we  are  utterly  unaware,  man  may  have  a  better  destiny. 
It  is  provided  by  an  incarnate  Redeemer.  That  is,  God  chose 
to  unite  Himself  with  a  creature,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  and 
bargained  with  the  man,  "compassed  with  infirmity"  and 
bloody  with  temptation  (Lu.  22  :  44  ;  Heb.  12  :  4),  that  if,  as 
Adam  was  to  have  done.  He,  the  second  Adam,  would  fight 
the  battle  for  His  race,  and  do  what  Adam  failed  to  do,  that  is, 
never  sin.  His  torment  in  the  doing  (being  undeserved  by  Him) 
should  be  imputed  to  His  race,  and  should  stand  for  their 
descrvings  ;  provided,  however,  that  in  this  world,  and  as  a 
fresh  probation,  they  should  turn  from  their  evil  ways,  and  by 
earnest  seeking  to  their  Maker  in  reliance  (more  or  less 
distinct)  upon  this  ransom  work,  they  should  accept  the  offer 
made  in  the  gospel.  This  is  "redemption."  It  has  many 
strange  concomitants.       It  is  slow   and  tardy,   and    may    not 


ii6  ROMANS. 

reach  a  man  for  eighty  years.  Though  provided  for  all  our 
race,  it  misses  millions.  Though  provided  for  all  our  time^ 
it  arrives  tardily.  Though  provided  for  all  our  sins,  it 
extinguishes  them  slowly.  And  though  provided  for  all  our 
pains,  we  breathe  our  first  breath  in  pain,  and  breathe  our  last 
often  in  horrible  anguish.  But  what  does  this  matter  ?  It  is 
as  it  is  ;  and  we  learn  what  it  is,  fact  by  fact,  as  we  survey  the 
gospel.  ^'- Rede^nption,''  therefore,  strictly  and  in  every  sense 
it  certainly  is  not.  The  Redeemer  did  not  pay  what  we  would 
have  to  pay  ;  only,  being  God,  He  paid  enough.  He  did  not 
pay  for  one  set  of  men  exactly  with  the  good  results  with  which 
He  paid  for  others.  He  damned  some  men  more  desperately. 
Therefore  it  was  not  a  redemption  at  all  in  any  thing  like  an 
ordinary  sense,  and  an  attempt  to  make  it  so  has  bred  the 
doctrine  of  a  definite  atonement,  and  other  figments  that  have 
scandalized  the  church.  It  was  not  any  one  thing  of  human 
boundaries.  It  was  not  a  ''  sacrifice  "  in  any  such  sense  as  that 
God  was  resentful.  God  has  no  such  trait.  He  has  but  two 
moralities,  a  love  for  the  dlKTf  (rig/it),  and  benevolence  for 
His  creatures.  Mediaeval  theology,  in  its  worst  shape,  was 
uppermost  when  men  dreamed  of  Vindicatory  Justice  as  by 
the  side  of  Benevolence.  The  severities  of  Hell  are  real,  and 
vindicatory  justice  exists,  and  is  just  as  terrible  as  they  have 
said  ;  but  it  is  not  w/iat  they  have  said.  It  is  the  fruit  of 
higher  moralities  ;  and  God's  love  of  holiness  is  the  adorable 
fountain  from  which  have  originated  all  the  divine  administra- 
tions. Men  err, therefore,  when  ''propitiation,"  or  "expiation,'* 
or  "  atonement,"  or  "  substitution,"  or  "  ransom  "  are  pushed 
beyond  the  intention  of  the  apostles.  The  very  multiplication 
of  the  terms  shows  the  labor  of  the  inspired  to  let  in  side 
lights.  And,  therefore,  when  men  proceed  to  extremities, 
and  represent  God  as  angry  in  such  a  sense  as  to  need  placa- 
tion,  when  the  very  plan  is  from  Him  ;  or  the  Son  as  pleased 
in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  in  a  fit  frame  to  placate  and  soothe 
the  Father,  when  He  is  the  very  begotten  of  the  Father,  men 
ruin  every  thing.  "  Rede77iption  "  is  a  great  plan,  which  we  can 
but   little   fathom  ;    the   sure   feature  of   which  is   that  it  is 


CJIAPTKR  in.  ,,7 

necessary ;  which  has  wholesorrle  elucidations  in  these  names 
for  it  by  the  apostles  ;  but  which,  like  the  Fall,  is  beyond 
reason  ;  and  is  best  described  by  Christ  where  He  says,  "  It 
behoved  Christ  to  suffer "  {itiu,  Luke  24  :  46).  That  is 
the  wisest  word  yet.  It  was  necessary  ;  why,  we  shall  never 
know.  It  was  the  directly  essential  thing,  for  some  cause  that 
we  must  leave  to  God,  "  for  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that 
obey  Him"  (Heb.  5  :  9). 

But,  now,  we  mortals,  having  that  which  the  devils  never 
had,  what  is  the  result  ?  Why,  the  cure  of  our  sinfulness. 
We  are  constantly  laying  emphasis  on  hell-torment.  If  we  are 
pardoned,  what  does  pardon  amount  to?  Would  it  be  anything 
if  it  left  the  head-curse  ?  This  was  what  rung  in  the  brains  of 
the  earlier  Christianity.  What  is  the  great  curse  ?  Sin. 
What  is  the  great  grace  ?  Ransom.  What  is  the  fruit  of 
ransom  ?  Pardon.  What  must  be  the  effect  of  pardon  ? 
Heaven,  indeed  ;  but,  as  the  great  foretaste  of  heaven,  a 
diminution  of  our  sinfulness.  This,  in  their  different  poses,  is 
conversion,  regeneration,  cleansing,  a  new  creation,  or  what- 
ever you  choose  to  call  a  betterment  of  character.  Now,  the 
Reformers  stripped  ^^  rede?nption"  of  a  part  of  its  effect,  and 
carried  it  over  to  a  new  conception.  If  I  am  pardoned,  what 
do  I  need  more  ?  If  I  am  pardoned,  Tophet  will  be  shut,  but, 
as  the  more  exalted  part  of  the  effect,  sin  will  be  diminished. 
What  is  the  diminution  of  my  sinfulness  but  a  creation  of 
righteousness  ?  It  is  not  really  righteousness,  for  it  continues 
sinful  ;  but  it  is  called  righteousness  so  as  to  avoid  telling  the 
story  over  again.  Luther  would  agree  in  that,  for  "  holy 
brethren  "  (Heb.  3:1)  certainly  did  not  mean  holy  brethren. 
Now,  continue  pardoning  me,  and  continue  sanctifying  me, 
and  what  do  I  need  more  ?  What  do  I  need  of  Christ's 
righteousness?  Christ's  righteousness  made  my  ransom 
perfect,  because  it  left  Him  innocent,  and  handed  over  to  me 
His  otherwise  unjust  sufferings.  But  what  do  I  need  further  ? 
Luther  dishonored  our  redemption  when  he  tore  from  it  its 
plenary  results,  and  built  up  another  story  to  the  work, 
namely,  the  transfer  to  us  of  another's  righteousness.     Let  us 


ii8  ROMANS. 

not  be  misunderstood.  We  build  everything  upon  Christ. 
We  emphasize  to  the  very  last  that  "  without  the  shedding  of 
blood  there  is  no  remission."  But  we  emphasize  the  doctrine 
further,  that  ivith  the  shedding  of  blood  there  may  be  every 
remission  ;  and  that  remission  would  be  a  farce  if  it  did  not 
take  away  our  sinfulness  ;  and  that  if  it  takes  away  our 
sinfulness,  that  means  that  it  "  makes  (us)  righteous  j  "  and  that 
if  it  "  makes  (us)  righteous,"  we  do  not  need  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  except  to  lean  on  as  giving  His  sufferings  free,  and 
to  pattern  after  as  pur  Great  Redeemer.  The  whole  Justifying 
idea  as  taught  in  modern  times  has  lessened  the  morality  of 
the  people.  It  is  true  we  build  upon  Christ  as  much  as  it  does, 
and  make  as  entire  the  helplessness  of  the  sinner  ;  but,  blotting 
out  a  whole  round  of  texts  that  mean  that  /  am  to  be  righteous, 
and  lessening  by  that  number  the  appeals  for  my  own  personal 
purification,  cannot  but  act  disastrously  ;  and  hence  the 
exceeding  importance  of  just  such  a  text  as  this  : — "  Being 
made  righteous  as  a  gift  by  His  grace  " — infinitely  not  by  a 
borrowed  or  transmitted  righteousness  :  I  do  not  need  that  if 
I  am  forgiven  ;  but,  as  the  fruit  of  my  forgiveness,  a  righteous- 
ness of  my  own  ;  that  is,  what  the  devils  are  denied,  an 
incipient  cure  within  ;  very  imperfect,  but  yet  dignified  (as  all 
admit  in  some  texts)  by  the  name  of  "  righteousness  "  (2  Cor. 
9  :  10),  and,  in  the  sinner's  case,  wholly  of  ^^  grace,''  and  as  the 
fruit  in  its  very  highest  attainments  of  the  Great  Redemption. 

25.  Whom  God  proposed  to  Himself  as  a  propitiation 
through  faith  in  His  blood,  to  show  His  righteousness  on 
account  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  that  had  been 
previously  committed  in  the  forbearance  of  God;  26.  More 
immediately  to  show  His  righteousness  in  the  present 
time,  that  He  might  be  righteous,  and  yet  make  righteous 
him  who  is  so  out  of  faith  in  Jesus. 

"  Proposed  to  Himself.'*  There  has  been  a  strange  dis- 
position to  translate  this,  ^^  set  forth''  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  or  by 
some  equivalent  expression.  The  verb  is  middle,  and  means 
most  radically  to  set  before  one's  self,  and,  hence,  to  fropose. 
Such   is   its    meaning   in    classical    authors.       In    the    New 


CJIAPTKR  III. 


\U) 


Testament  it  occurs  twice  else>vhere,  and  in  each  instance  in 
this  sense.  "  1  purposed  to  come  unto  you  "  (E.  V.,  Rom.  i  :  13). 
Again,  Paul  being  still  the  speaker,  "  Having  made  known 
unto  us  the  mystery  of  His  will,  according  to  His  good 
pleasure  which  He  hath  purposed  in  Himself "  (E.  V.,  Eph.  i  :  9). 
Paul,  therefore,  uses  the  verb  three  times  ;  and  he  uses  the 
noun  seven  times,  in  fact  only  six,  if  we  exclude  the  Hebrews, 
and  the  latter  number  is  half  of  all  the  instances  in  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures.  Of  the  remaining  six,  four  relate  to  the 
shew-bread,  ''  the  loaves  rrpodtatu^,  of  the  setting  out  "  (Matt., 
Mr.,  Lu.),  or,  in  the  Hebrews,  '*  the  setting  forth  of  loaves  " 
(Heb.  9:  2).  The  two  others  are  just  what  we  speak  of,  viz., 
a  purpose,  ''  with  purpose  of  heart"  (E.  V.,  Acts  11  :  23),  and, 
in  the  same  book,  '^  they  had  obtained  their  purpose"  (V..  V., 
Acts  27  :  13).  And  then  the  six  instances,  which  are  certainly 
of  Paul,  are  these: — "According  to  His  purpose"  (PL.  V., 
Rom.  8  :  28).  "  The  purpose  of  God  "  (E.  V.,  Rom.  9:11). 
"  According  to  the  purpose,"  and  "  according  to  the  eternal 
purpose  "  (E.  V.,  Eph.  i  :  1 1  c\:  3  :  1 1).  "  According  to  His 
own  purpose  "  (E.  V.  2  Tim.  i  :  9).  "  Doctrine,  manner  of  life, 
purpose  "  (E.  V.,  2  Tim.  3  :  10).  The  arrangement,  therefore, 
of  which  He  is  about  to  speak  is  a  matter  of  God's  purpose^ 
however  important  the  scttin;^  forth  idea  may  be  before  the 
close  of  the  sentence.  "Propitiation."  The  word  is  from 
an  adjective  (t>.aof)  that  means  mild  or  clement.  Our  word 
hilarity  traces  to  it.  The  idea  is  a  very  simple  one,  and  means 
any  certain  something  that  makes  clefiieut^  or  secures  ''pro- 
pitiation.'' "By  faith  in  His  blood."  The  Revisionists, 
catching  the  feeling  that  "'propitiation  "  cannot  be  "  through  " 
(Re.)  ''/aithy"  have  attacked  the  punctuation.  Their  idea  is 
that  ''propitiation  "  is  gloriously  sufficient  ;  that  "  faith,"  as 
added  to  it,  is  utterly  unscriptural,  and  so  it  is.  "  Propitiation  " 
is  a  clean  work  by  itself,  and  "faith  "  is  only  necessary  to  it 
to  secure  its  benefits.  In  fact  "faith,''  in  itself  considered,  is 
the  very  "substance"  (Heb.  11  :  i)  of  its  benefit.  They, 
therefore,  point  in  this  fashion  : — "  Whom  God  set  forth  to  be 
a  propitiation,  through  faith,  by  His  blood." 


I20  ROMANS. 

Now,  the  difficulties  of  all  this  are,  first,  that  it  remedies 
nothing.  Making  '■^  faith  "  parenthetical  does  not  remove  it 
sufficiently.  What  is  it  still  but  "  propitiation  through  faith  ?" 
Second,  why  did  not  Paul  attend  to  the  matter  ?  A  Greek 
clear  of  the  mistake  could  be  constructed  easier  than  by 
parenthesis.  Third,  how  better  than  just  this  way  could  a 
meaning  be  constructed  which  we  are  about  to  dilate  upon? 
Aid,  as  we  have  seen  (i  :  ii  ;  2  :  27),  has  the  sense  of 
accompa7iiment.  "  This  is  He  who  came  by  water  and  blood." 
"  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee  that  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy  "  (i  Tim.  4:14).  "  Who  by  the  letter  and  circumcis- 
ion "etc.  (2  :27).  ''By  Him  were  all  things  created"  (Col.  i  :  16). 
This  like  beth  essentice  (Prov.  3  :  26)  is  a  peculiarity  that  we 
neglect  at  our  peril.  The  idea  is  of  necessary  accompanifnent. 
As  God  ''created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ"  (Eph.  3  :  9)  in 
the  sense  that  all  was  naught  without  Him  as  an  accom- 
paniment, so  He  ^''  proposed  to  Himself  a  propitiation''  with  this 
inexorable  link,  that  all  was  naught  without  faith  ;  that  just 
as  the  universe  required  Christ,  or  Christ's  errand  required 
blood  (Heb.  9  :  12),  so  this  "propitiation,"  in  its  turn,  should 
require  faith  as  its  necessary  accompaniment"  and  that,  too,  the 
"faith  in  (the)  blood''  of  the  exacted  sacrifice.  ^^Pro- 
pitiation," therefore,  is  a  desirable  word  except  in  certain  par- 
ticulars, first,  that  it  does  not  jnake  clement  except  where  it  has 
given  ^^  faith,"  and,  second,  that  it  does  not  make  clement  at  all 
in  the  sense  of  God's  personal  estate,  in  as  much  as  He  was 
previously  clement  in  the  very  act  of  proposing  to  Himself  the 
blessed  gospel.  "  Blood"  I  need  hardly  say,  means  all  suffering 
from  the  manger  to  the  ascension  into  heaven. 

We  come  next  to  the  special  uses  of  the  passage  in  carrying 
out  Paul's  projet  from  the  beginning  : — "  I  am  ready  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  them  that  are  in  Rome  also  "  (Rom.  i  :  15). 
And  he  described  what  the  gospel  was.  It  was  "  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth."  And  he  gave 
the  general  reason,  "  Because  therein  the  righteousness  of  God 
is  revealed,"  and  revealed  to  "  faith,"  and  revealed  in  so  inter- 
nal and  moral  a  way  that  men  "  live  "  thereby  {ib.  v.  17),  that 


CHAPTER  III.  12  1 

is,  seeing  this  noble  exemplar  of  *•  righteousness,"  they  become 
**  righteous,"  and  ''righteous"  inchoately  in  the  shape  of 
"faith,"  fulfilling  a  quotation  of  the  apostle  taken  from  Hab- 
bakuk,  "The  righteous  by  faith  shall  live." 

Now,  having  taken  the  gospel  to  pieces,  he  takes  each  part 
of  it  and  explains  how  shaiving  it  (as,  for  example,  in  this 
instance,  the  ''propitiation''  feature)  is  a  showing  of  ''the 
righteousness  of  God."  And  when  the  showing  is  tvdei^iq ,  an 
inward  showing,  it  amounts  to  inward  "faith."  What  God 
irpoidtTo  He  had  to  propose  fo?-  Himself  in  order  to  satisfy 
justice  ;  but,  having  proposed  it  to  Himself  as  what  I6ei,  that 
is,  was  the  thing  required,  He  expounds  it  to  His  people  ;  and 
uses  what  was  a  necessity  in  court,  as  a  necessity  a  second 
time  for  the  moral  illumination  of  the  sinner.  "  IFhom  God 
proposed  to  Himself  as  a  propitiation  by  faith  in  His  bloody 
to  show  His  righteousness."  The  word  is  iviu^iq  which 
always  means  an  inward  showing.  It  is  never  applied  to  out- 
ward objects,  but  always  to  inward  ;  that  is,  in  the  few  cases  in 
which  it  occurs,  it  means  to  show  "  wrath  "  (9  :  22),  or  to  show 
"power"  {ib.  :  17),  or  ''the  work  of  the  law"  (2  :  15),  or 
"  faith  "  (Ti.  2  :  10),  or  "  meekness  "  (Ti.  3  :  2),  or  "diligence  " 
(Heb.  6  :  11),  or  "boasting"  (2  Cor.  8  :  24),  or  "  many  evil 
things"  (2  Tim.  4  :  14),  with  such  a  result  upon  the  inward 
eye  as  the  necessities  of  the  passage  would  lead  us  to 
imagine.*  Now,  Paul  shows  a  lesser  and  a  deeper  shaiuing  ; 
and  he  also  states  an  earlier  and  a  more  immediate  end.  "  To 
show  His  righteousness ;''  now,  in  what  particular?  First  in 
the  lesser  particular  of  "passing  over  sins  previously  com- 
mitted." This  had  been  a  scandal  in  the  universe.  The  "pro- 
pitiation'' explained  how  God  could  slumber  so  when  men  were 
cursing  Him.  This  was  the  earlier  exigence,  and  is  expressed 
by  fJc ;  and  then  comes  the  more  immediate  purpose 
(Trpoc  a  particle  more  urgent  than  fif  ;,  "  to  show  His 
righteousness    in  the  present   time,    that   He    might   be 

*  When  Alexander,  the  coppersmith,  "  showed  (Paul)  many  evil  things," 
of  course  it  did  not  sanctify  Paul  in  the  way  that  it  did  to  show  him  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.     The  result  must  be  in  the  thing  shown. 


122  ROMANS. 

righteous  and  yet  make  righteous  him  who  is  so  out  of 
faith  in  Jesus."  Paul,  as  his  custom  is,  carries  everything 
along  in  the  torrent  of  his  speech.  He  drags  after  him  in  one 
breath  two  unspeakable  sequences,  one  that  God  may  be  able 
to  do  a  certain  thing,  and  the  other  that  He  may  have  actual 
subjects  to  do  it  on.  The  failure  to  disentangle  these  has 
caused  some  of  the  embarrassments  about  the  word  npokQtTo. 
God  Trpoide-o,  that  is  '''•proposed  to  Himself^''  the  llaaTijpLov, 
to  make  it  possible  to  remove  the  sinfulness  of  men.  It  was 
''the  requisite  for  eternal  salvation."  But  then,  as  it  was 
bound  inexorably  to  "/(;?////,"  He  must  have  His  way  of  pro- 
ducing ^'- faith  ;''  and  He  chose  most  practically  to  do  it  by 
shoiving  this  vtry '-^ propitiation  J ''  that  is  by  j'/^<?7<:'/;/^^  inwardly 
and  savingly,  and  in  the  shape  of  ^^ faith,''  and  in  such  a  shape 
of  "  faith "  as  shall  be  through  moral  light  and  itself  a 
righteousness,  the  righteousness  of  God,''  as  gloriously  exhibited 
in  a  plan  by  which  always  sin  could  wait  for  its  punishment 
upon  the  operations  of  the  gospel,  and  by  which  now  sin  can 
be  forgiven,  and  God  make  better  men  those  "  who  (are) 
so  by  faith  in  Jesus."  "  Him  who  is  so  "  is  not  vital  to  the 
meaning,  but  it  makes  it  plainer  ;  and  the  warrant  for  such 
filling  out  of  texts  can  be  found  in  many  a  sentence  (5  :  12  ; 
16  :  27  ;  I  Cor.  2  :  9  ;  2  Cor.  4:6;  see  Winer,  Am.  Ed., 
p.  168). 

Two  inferences  remain,  first,  that  "boasting"  is  out 
of  place,  and  second,  that  there  is  no  "God  of  Jews," 
except  in  the  aspects  stated  (v.  2),  who  is  not  the  God  of  all 
nations  ;  and  that,  by  throwing  over  board  the  Israelitish 
claims,  there  is  nothing  really  taken  from  "the  law,"  but 
much  confirmed. 

27.  Where  is  the  boasting  then?  It  was  shut  out.  By 
what  sort  of  law?  Of  the  works?  Nay,  but  by  a  law 
of  faith.  28.  We  reckon,  therefore,  that  a  man  is  made 
righteous  in  the  shape  of  faith  aside  from  works  of  law. 
29.  Or  is  He  the  God  of  Jews  only?  Is  He  not  also  of 
Gentiles?  30.  Aye,  of  Gentiles  also.  If  indeed  God  is 
one,  being  such  a  one  as  out  of  faith  will  make  righteous 
the  circumcision,  and  by  means  of  faith  the  uncircum- 


CHAPTER  J  J  I.  123 

cision.    31.  Do  we  then  bring  law  to  nothing  by  faith? 
By  no  means.    On  the  contrary  we  set  up  law. 

"The  boasting."  That  which  Paul  has  been  ariruing  down 
in  other  passages  (2  :  17  etc.).  "It  was  shut  out:"  that  is 
(aorist)  a  longtime  ago,  through  all  dispensations.  "By  what 
sort  of  law?"  The  Jews,  in  ''  boastin^^''  of  law  (2  :  17),  of 
course  appealed  to  it.  Now,  "  what  sort  of  /ci:c>  "  justified 
boasting?  Not  even  a  law  ''of  works,"  especially  of  '' t/w 
works  "  such  as  the  Jews  themselves  professed,  which  were 
full  of  sacrificial  gospel.  But  eminently  not  another  sort  of 
law.  A  second  covenant  added  to  the  first  ;  that  is  a  new 
'''law  "  added  to  the  old,  and  was  strictly  "a  law  of  faith;" 
which  new  law  not  simply  demanded  "/<7///r,"  for  that  the  old 
law  did,  but  afforded  grace  for  its  bestowal,  and  more  than 
ever,  therefore,  "shut"  boasting  "out"  (''  excluded''  it,  E.V.)  ; 
for  by  the  very  nature  of  the  ''faith  "  Abraham,  as  we  after- 
wards learn,  could  not  boast  "before  God"  (4  :  2). 

"Made  righteous  in  the  shape  of  faith."  "  By  faith'* 
(E.  V.  &  Re.)  is  a  most  injurious  English.  It  appears  in  all 
our  translations.  Sometimes  "  through  "  is  substituted  for  it  ; 
rarely  anything  else.  It  is  a  key  point  in  all  our  theologies, 
and  this  is  a  good  moment  thoroughly  to  discuss  it.  The 
preposition  "by  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  is  made  to  express  in  English 
four  conditions  of  the  Greek — either,  first,  of  this  where  there 
is  no  preposition  at  all,  but  simply  the  dative  case  ;  or,  as 
occasion  comes,  of  that  where  there  is  either  of  three  pre- 
positions, i/£.  6ia  and  fi'.  This  general  rendering  by  "  by  "  is 
oTten  mourned  over,  and  men  are  ready  to  complain  of  the 
poverty  of  the  English  ;  indeed,  with  all  his  nice  distinctions, 
Paul  is  not  only  stripped  of  them  in  our  tongue,  but,  alas,  for 
his  main  point  !  has  it  completely  blurred,  and,  in  fact, 
altered,  in  the  hands  of  the  Reformed.  Justification  "  bv  faith  " 
has  been  a  different  thing  since  the  days  of  Luther.  In  a  way 
that  impaired  redemption  (see  com.  v.  24),  the  doctrine  that 
Christ's  sufferings  were  imputed  to  us  has  been  added  to  by 
the  idea  that  so  was  also  His  righteousness.  A/Kn<6(j,  to 
justify  (E.  V.  L^  Re.),   has,   therefore,  received  the  meaning  of 


124  ROMANS. 

this  transfer.  No  earthly  writing  uses  it  in  a  kindred  sense. 
I  justify  myself,  but  I  pretend  that  I  deserve  it.  I  justify 
God,  but  I  know  that  He  deserves  it.  I  justify  the  wicked,  but 
I  lie  in  doing  so,  for  I  make  pretend  his  innocence.  If  I 
translate  6iKaL6u)  of  a  transference  of  righteousness,  I  do 
that  which  has  no  warrant  in  any  human  language.  If  it 
became  necessary  to  coin  a  sense,  we  would  not  object  ;  but 
that  is  not  the  outgiving.  The  pretension  is  that  justify 
naturally  translates  diKatou  in  the  sense  of  imputed  righteous- 
ness. We  have  already  shown  that  diKatoi^  means  to  make 
righteous  (2  :  13).  We  have  traced  it  to  its  root  in  6'iKr},  and 
we  have  further  shown  that,  as  that  word  means  the  actual 
right,  so  the  verb  means  actually  to  make  righteous,  only  with 
the  same  reserve  with  which  to  7nake  cleaii  or  to  fuake  holy  are 
used  for  incipient  believers.  This  being  so,  faith,  in  the  Greek, 
unfolds  an  easy  teaching.  Paul  means  differently  by  all  his 
prepositions.  When  he  says,  ^^Afade  righteous  by  faith,''  he 
means,  that  when  a  man,  driven  by  terror,  cries  out  to  God, 
and  in  the  light  of  his  boyhood's  faith  appeals  to  Christ  for  his 
deliverance,  and  God,  as  He  has  promised,  hears  him  and 
regenerates  his  spirit,  the  light  in  which  that  new  birth  consists, 
enters  his  ''  faith  "  as  it  enters  his  love,  and  as  it  enters  all  his 
repentance,  and  it  becomes  saving  "  faith,"  and  therein,  just 
there,  it  is  his  essential  righteousness.  A  man,  therefore,  is 
not  justified  by  faith  in  the  sense  of  having  Christ's  righteous- 
ness transferred  to  him  on  the  condition  of  trusting  Him,  but 
he  is  7?iade  righteous  by  means  of  faith  (choosing  now  the  wocd 
<5m),  when  his  common  ^^ faith  "  is  touched  by  the  Spirit 
and  becomes  coeval  with  repentance,  and  becomes  a  fruit  of 
regeneration,  and  hence  moral  in  its  nature,  and  hence  an 
actual  righteousness  in  its  germ  and  earnest.  All  the  sense 
of  did  is  not  exhausted  by  the  idea  that  "faith  "  is  the 
righteousness.  It  is  a  means  as  well.  That  is,  it  is  that  grace 
which  has  the  further  promise  of  life  and  help  if  we  continue 
in  the  seeking.  And  now,  "  made  righteous  out  of  {ik)  faith" 
(5  :  1)  :  What  is  that  ?  It  is  a  stronger  expression,  that 
*'■  faith  "  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the   righteousness.     "  Iji  " 


CJIArTER  J  J  I.  125 

{hv ,  Gal.  2  :  20)  is  still  stronger.  But  then,  coming  close 
to  my  text,  the  dative  (iriaTei  or  r/?  Triarei)  is  strongest  of  all. 
It  really  places  ^'  faith  "  in  apposition  to  righteousness.  It  is 
"  the  dative  of  material  "  (see  Jelf,  Ox.  Ed.,  ^  610).  It  means 
"  righteous  in  the  shape  (or  form)  of  faith,"  and  so  we  have 
translated  it  ;  and  it  has  oceans  of  precedent  in  this  same 
apostle. 

Let  us  dwell  upon  this  a  little.  (Where  is  there  anything 
more  vital  ?)  In  the  very  call  of  this  apostle  we  have  this 
language,  "  Sanctified  by  faith  (E.  V.,  -^[aru  )  that  is  in 
me"  (Acts  26  :  18).  ''Sanctified,"  it  will  be  noticed;  not 
justified  ;  destroying  Luther's  right  to  separate  justification 
from  other  subjective  words  ;  and  ''  sanctified  "  in  the  shape  of 
faith  (dative),  plainly  meaning  that  the  sanctification  con- 
sisted in  the  faith.  "  The  hand-writing  "  consisted  in  the 
"  ordinances  "  (dative)  beyond  a  doubt,  as  Paul  wrote  to  the 
Colossians  (2  :  14).  Abraham  was  ''  weak  in  faith"  (dative), 
or  "made  strong  in  faith  "  (dative),  when  his  weakness  or  his 
strength  equally  consisted  in  his  faith,  I  mean  as  weak  or 
strong  (4  :  19,  20).  Standing  by  faith  (2  Cor.  i  :  24),  abounding 
in  faith  (2  Cor.  8  :  l)y  purifying  by  faith  (Acts  15  :  9),  all  datives, 
mean  that  the  standing  or  the  abounding  or  the  making  pure 
were  all  essentially  the  faith  ;  that  is,  that  they  consisted  in  it. 
The  genitive  is  used  with  like  effect  where  it  speaks  of  "  the 
righteousness  of  faith"  (4  :  11).  What  is  that  but  faith? 
And  iv  {in)  often  amounts  to  the  same  ;  as  for  example, 
*'  salvation  in  sanctification  of  spirit,  and  faith  in  truth  " 
(2  Thess.  2:13);  indeed  a  double  example  ;  for  if  salvation 
consists  in  sanctification,  why  not  also  essentially  and  subjec- 
tively (as  here  in  the  same  category)  in  "  faith  in  the  truth  "  ? 
"We  reckon,  therefore,  that  a  man  is  made  righteous"  by 
being  made  to  believe  graciously  and  as  a  gift,  the  ''faith  " 
being  itself  moral  like  all  the  other  graces  of  the  Spirit,  the 
''faith  "  becoming,  therefore,  itself  his  righteousness  ;  "aside 
from  works  of  law,"  because  " /aio  "  cannot  produce  such 
"  7c>orhs,"  simply  from  being  thundered  at  us  ;  any  more  than 
"body"    can   (7    :   24  ;  8   :   13),   or    "flesh"    can    (8  13),    or 


126  ROMANS. 

"darkness"  can  (13   :   12),  or  even  Christ  can  (Jo.  5   :  30), 
without  His  Godhead  achieving  it  for  Him  (Jo.   14  :  10). 

To  suppose  that,  as  a  gospel  for  the  Jews,  He  should  deny 
its  freeness,  and  plan  to  save  them  in  trampling  the  gospel, 
would  be  audacious.  "  Is  He  God  of  Jews  only  ?  '* 
Appeals  so  plain  as  to  be  nil  logically,  are  warm  in  the 
hands  of  Paul.  "If  indeed  God  is  one."  Why,  of 
course  He  is  one.  Well,  then,  "being  sucli  a  one  as"  (see 
the  force  of  6f,  Jelf,  also  Winer,  Am.  Ed.,  p.  168,  and  com- 
ment., 5  :  26  ;  also  com.  5:12)  has  made  a  rule,  and  a  very 
gracious  one,  that  is,  to  "  make  circumcision  righteous  out 
of  faith,  and  uncircumcision  by  means  of  faith,"  how 
possibly  can  circumcision  either  glory  or  complain  ?  The 
sentence  is  strangely  keen.  If  you  are  the  genuine  "  circum- 
cision,^' and  of  a  line  with  Abraham,  then,  of  course,  you  believe, 
and  "  out  of  faith  "  (notice  the  preposition  k  )  God  is  making 
you  righteous.  If  you.  are  not  the  "  circwncision,"  but  either 
''by  nature''  (2  :  27),  or  sin  (2  :  9),  are  become  '' uncirciwi- 
cision  "  (2  :  25),  God  "  fy  ineans  of  faith  "  v/ill  yet  "  make  "  you 
''righteous  J- "  that  is  will  answer  your  prayer,  and  give  you 
graciously  the  holiness  that  is  in  believing.  "  Z>o  we  then 
make  void  the  law  by  faith  "  (E.  V.)  ?  "By  no  means."  It  is  to 
re-establish  the  law.  "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do  in  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh  ;  "  that  is,  what  the  old  cove- 
nant could  not  do  simply  by  promise  and  gospel  speech,  God 
did.  He  wrote  the  law  on  the  heart,  and  gave  the  gospel  an 
imprint  upon  the  sinner. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Paul,  having  prepared  the  way,  for  the  first  time  introduces 
Abraham.  It  is  a  master  stroke.  The  Jews  trusted  to 
Abraham.  One  drop  of  Abraham's  blood,  with  circumcision, 
was  crown  and  castle.     If  Paul  illustrated  by  Israel  (9  :  6),  he 


CHAPTER  IV.  127 

must  include  the  Patriarch.  This  he  does  si;;nally  in  the 
present  chapter.  There  are  divers  differences  in  the  MSS.  : 
none  of  them  very  vital.  We  choose  by  the  usual  criteria  of 
claim,  but  without  comment  : — 

1.  What  shall  we  therefore  say  that  Abraham,  our  first 
father,  found  through  flesh  ? 

Paul  reaches  the  very  core  of  the  Jew's  prejudice.  He  does 
not  attack  what  the  Jew  could  find  from  "Abraham,"  but, 
infinitely  worse,  what  ''  Abra/iam  "  could  Jind  for  himself.  His 
catapult  is  flat  against  the  citadel.  "Therefore,"  if  we  are 
to  '*  set  up  law  "(3:31),  then  "  Abraham  .'  "  What  are  we  to 
say  of  him?  ''According  to''  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  We  translate 
"through"  as  more  English,  and  for  other  reasons  detailed 
in  a  previous  case  (i  :  3,  4).  This  expression,  "through 
flesh,"  is  a  key  to  the  whole  epistle.  It  means  that  through 
the  fie sh  a  man  cannot  be  '•  viadc  righteous." 

This  is  the  omnivocal  truth.  ^'  By  works  of  /azu  shall 
710  flesh  be  made  righteous."  Why  ?  Because  by  the  heralding 
of  the  gospel  (to  take  the  "  law  "  at  the  very  strongest)  no 
mortal  man  can  be  converted.  He  needs  something  more,  viz., 
the  inward  application  of  ''law"  thus  thundered  forth. 
"  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  is  uttered  to  that  which  is 
dead.  Paul  explains  this,  "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in 
that  it  was  weak  through  "the  flesh,  (lod,  etc.,  etc."  (8  :  3)  ; 
and  still  more  extensively  just  afterward.  The  apostle 
expounds  the  apostle.  What  "  according  to  the  flesh  "  (E.  V.) 
did  he  find  ?  Why,  nothing.  "  They  that  are  after  the  flesh 
do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh  ;  but  they  that  are  after  the 
Spirit,  the  things  of  the  Spirit  ;  for  the  minding  of  the  flesh 
i^marg)  is  death,  but  the  minding  of  the  Spirit  (marg.)  is  life 
and  peace  ;  because  the  minding  of  the  flesh  (marg.)  is  enmity 
against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be.  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
God."  There  is  no  mystery  in  this  thing.  *'  Works  0/  law" 
are  "works  of  flesh  ;  "  that  is,  if  the  law  which  is  to  produce 
them  in  the  soul  has  nothing  to  dej-)end  upon  but  to  herald  out 


128  ROMANS. 

its  commands  to  our  ahp^  {''flesh  "),  when  stronger  than  our 
•nvEvaa  ("spirit").  For  though  our  "spirit"  is  the  abode 
of  God's  Spirit,  yet  He  must  increase  its  Hght  before  it  is 
moved  savingly  by  "  law  "  or  gospel.  This  makes  the  passage 
very  complete. 

2.  For  if  Abraham  was  made  righteous  by  works,  he 
has  whereof  to  boast,  but  not  toward  God  by  what  the 
Scripture  says ;  3.  But  Abraham  believed.  God,  and  it  was 
reckoned  to  him  as  righteousness. 

"For."  There  follow  a  series  of  arguments  to  show  that 
"  Abraham  through  the  flesh  foimd''  nothing. 

"Works."  He  uses  this  expression  as  a  word  by  itself  for 
the  first  time.  And  we  see,  he  falters.  "  Works  of  law  " 
(3  :  20  etc.), — that  can  be  positive.  "  Works''  that  ''law''  can 
produce  by  the  mere  ypa^jia  or  heralding — that  we  can 
dispose  of  brusquely.  But  "  ivorks  !  " — that  will  answer  for 
terseness,  but  must  be  understood  with  vast  explanation.  And, 
therefore,  before  Paul  launches  himself  upon  that  free  use,  he 
takes  care  that  he  be  understood.  "  Was  made  righteous  by 
works."  He  does  not  say  "  were''  (E.  V.).  He  discards  the 
subjunctive  altogether.  Nor  does  he  say  "would  have  "  {sub- 
junctive with  av)  ;  but  he  says  "hath"  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  whereby 
we  understand  that  Abraham  "was  made  righteous  by  works ^'* 
and  did  have  Kavxrifia,  or  "whereof  to  boast."  Nor  need  we 
be  uneasy  for  the  gospel  ;  for  Paul  says  that  thing  over  and 
again.  He  says,  "  A  man  is  not  made  righteous  by  works  of 
law,  except  hy  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  "  (Gal.  2  :  16).  And  now 
for  our  general  comment :  To  say  that  "  a  man  is  not  7?iade 
righteous  by  works  "  would  be  very  much  like  saying  that  he  is 
not  made  bad  by  sin,  or  made  fat  by  bodily  substance.  The 
folly  of  this  guards  Paul's  tersenesses  of  rhetoric.  He  has  said 
"  works  of  law  "  till  the  thing  could  be  understood,  and  has  ex- 
plained himself  in  so  many  ways  as  to  venture  now  the  more  terse 
expression.  Think  of  men  who  sang,  "  Oh,  how  love  I  Thy 
law!"  being  taught  that  by  "works"  no  man  was  "made 
righteous" !  And,  therefore,  Paul  had  explained  himself  all 
the  way  alo»ng.     *'  The  work  of  law"  even,  would  save  a  man 


CHAPTER  IV. 


29 


under  certain  gospel  circumstances  (Gal.  2:16).  "  The  doers 
of  law"  would  alone  "be  made  righteous"  (2  :  13).  They 
were  to  be  judged  "every  man  according  to  his  works" 
(Rev.  20  :  12).  And  John  was  not  more  earnest  that  "he 
that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous"  (i  Jo.  3  :  7),  or  Christ 
that  men  must  do  these  sayings  of  His  (Matt.  7  :  24,  etc.),  or 
James  that  we  must  be  "doers  of  the  work"  (Jas.  i  :  25), 
than  Paul,  that  it  must  be  "  by  patient  continuance  in  well- 
doing" that  we  are  to  "  .seek  glory,  and  honor,  and  immortality, 
eternal  life"  (2  :  7).  That  it  is  not  ''works,"  therefore, 
that  jnake  us  righteous  is  absurd.  'I'hey  actually  grade  all  the 
extent  in  which  we  are  ''righteous''  (Rev.  20  :  13).  But  that 
we  are  "made  righteous''  in  this  world  in  any  but  the  very 
incomplete  sense  of  being  less  sinful,  or  that  we  are  "  ?nade 
righteous"  ever  in  the  sense  of  satisfying  for  the  sins  of  life, 
or  that  we  are  "  made  righteous  "  (now,  as  the  chief  point)  by 
starting  out  to  be  so  in  the  strength  of  "  the  flesh"  and  under 
thunders  from  "  the  law"  are  equally  impossible,  and  Paul 
aims  to  teach  that  we  have  been  redeemed  by  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  and  had  bought  for  us  (as  the  devils  never  had)  the 
influences  of  the  Spirit, — that  we  may  seek  and  find  ;  and  that 
we  may  have  in  this  dawning  "faith  "  the  beginnings  of  a 
righteousness. 

"  If"  therefore,  "  Abraham  was  made  righteous  by  works" 
as,  of  course,  he  was,  for  who  by  the  possibilities  of  ethics  can 
be  made  righteous  in  any  other  form  ?  "  he  has  whereof  to 
boast"  and  Paul,  when  men  were  concerned,  did  much  of  this 
rightful  boasting.  He  cries,  "I  have  fought  a  good  fight" 
(2  Tim.  4  :  7).  He  declares,  "  I  labored  more  than  they  all" 
(i  Cor.  15  :  10).  He  boasts,  "  I  am  not  behind  the  chiefest  of 
the  apostles"  (i  Cor.  15  :  10).  He  uses  this  very  word 
(Ka^V/'^/r),  "  that  whereof  I  may  boast  through  Jesus 
Christ"  (Rom.  15  :  17).  And,  if  he  had  hesitated,  he  need 
but  turn  back  to  an  older  date  ;  for  the  saddest  of  the  prophets 
cries  out,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Let  not  the  wise  man  boast 
(LXX,  KavxaoBiji)  in  his  wisdom,  neither  let  the  mighty  man 
boast  in  his  might  ;    let  not  the  rich  man  boast  in  his   riches. 


I30  ROMANS. 

but  let  him  that  boasts  boast  in  this,  that  he  understands  and 
knows  me,  that  I  am  the  Lord  who  exercise  loving-kindness, 
judgment  and  righteousness  in  the  earth  "  (Jer.  9  :  23,  24). 
If,  therefore,  "  Abra/ia?n  was  made  righteous  by  works "  (as 
indeed  all  must  be  in  the  more  natural  and  usual  sense),  "  /le 
has  whereof  to  boast  "  (Neh.  13  :  14),  for  he  greatly  excelled  in 
righteousness  (Heb.  11  :  17)  those  about  him;  "but  not 
toward  God"  by  any  warrant  that  the  Scriptures  give. 
''But'"  (v.  3).  This  word  {de)  is  not  in  the  Septuagint. 
The  Seventy  have  Kal  {''and").  But  6e  also  appears  in  the 
Epistle  of  James  (Jas.  2  :  23).  We  cannot  explain  it  there. 
But  here  it  has  seemed  to  be  connected  with  the  particular 
shape  of  the  clause  preceding.  That  clause  scarce  answers  to 
the  English,  "  For  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?"  (E.  V.  &  Re.), 
because  the  riypatpi)  is  before  the  Uyet  (see  11  :  2,  Gal.  4:  30), 
and  such  things,  under  so  careful  a  pen  as  Paul's,  should  be 
carefully  noted.  Tt  {"■  what")  as  W  indirect  (see  Matt.  10  :  19) 
would  give  greater  room  for  " but"  or,  even  if  we  had  to  dis- 
card it  as  interrogative  (as  perhaps  we  ought  to  do  in  certain 
other  Scriptures),  it  is  better  to  imagine  moderns  to  be  false 
in  the  accent,  than  Paul  himself  as  not  careful  of  the  order  of 
his  speech.  Vap  often  tinctures  with  this  sort  of  soup^on  of  a 
reason  ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  might  naturally  be, 
*'  i2ot  toward  God  by  "  (meaning  y^r  the  reason  of)  "  what  "  (or 
''' a7iy  thing  that")  *' the  Scripture  says,"  ''but"  (giving  free 
room  to  introduce  the  dk  before  the  actual  quotation)  : — "but 
^Abraha?n  believed  God  and  it  ivas  reckoned  to  him  as  righteous- 
ness.' "  It  is  possible,  however,  that  all  this  is  unnecessary, 
and  that  there  was  a  reading  of  6k  in  LXX  MSS.  (see  Meyer). 
There  is  neither  Kai  nor  dt  however  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  (3  :  6). 

Thus  then  is  introduced  a  sentence  that  seems  to  have  had 
a  broad  horizon  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle.  Of  all  other  texts 
in  the  Bible  it  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  rendering  less 
subjective — "righteousness."  "By  faith" — and  here  let  it 
be  noted  that  that  dative  all  through  the  most  marvellous 
chapter  in  the  Hebrews   (11)  is  without  the  preposition,  and 


CHAPTER  IV.  131 

therefore,  means  that  essential  "  substance  "  (see  first  verse) 
of  piety  which  each  case  quoted  brings  into  view  {see  cotn.  3 130) — 
•'  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  tried,  offered  up  Isaac  " 
(Heb.  II  :  17).  All  our  study  of  Abraham  should  convince 
us  that  his  faith  was  new-bred  holiness,  as  imbuing  and  charac- 
terizing, just  as  it  might  love  or  alms-giving,  the  pious  act  by 
which  he  trusted  the  Almighty.  All  holiness  expresses  itself 
in  exercise  ;  and  if  seeking  and  trusting  are  just  that  exercise 
which  God  commands  to  the  sinner,  it  is  perfectly  just  to  say 
that  when  he  obeys  the  command  out  of  holiness,  just  as  he 
would  that  of  love  or  alms-giving,  it  becomes  saving,  and  it 
becomes  the  method  of  more  and  more  holiness  ;  and  who  can 
profess,  then,  not  to  understand  how  "  Abraham  believed  God, 
and  it  was  reckoned  to  him  as  righteousness  ?  " 

It  will  be  noticed  that  we  scarce  quote  from  James.  James 
has  strong  texts  in  our  English  Bibles  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  He  is 
made  to  say,  "  By  works  a  man  is  justified  "  (2  :  24)  ;  and  to 
ask,  **  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified  by  works"  (v.  21)  ? 
"and  was  not  Rahab  justified  by  works,  in  that  (Re.)  she 
received  the  messengers,  and  sent  them  out  another  way  " 
(v.  25)  ?  This  was  the  great  Jamesian  subjectivity  that  made 
Luther  speak  of  a  "straw  epistle."  But  just  where  the 
English  (E.  V.)  comes  in  to  help  our  view  of  Paul,  we  are 
obliged  to  give  it  up.  We  are  obliged,  in  honesty,  to  under- 
stand James  differently.  We  understand  from  the  order  of 
the  Greek  that  he  was  asserting  a  fact  ;— "  Abraham  "  (and  in 
the  like  case  "  Rahab  ")  "  was  not  made  righteous  by  works  ;  " 
and  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse  he  was  asking  a  question,  "  Do 
ye,  indeed,  see  that  a  man  is  made  righteous  by  works,  and  not 
alone  by  faith  ?  "  So  that  James  is  more  Pauline  than  Paul. 
And  yet,  though  we  know  that  till  some  day  we  can  treat  * 
separately  of  this  criticism,  and  rob  it  of  its  improbable  look, 
our  repute  will  suffer,  yet  we  insist  upon  bringing  it  forward. 
If  it  is  false,  the  more  whimsical  it  seems  the  better.  If  it  is 
true,  it  will  work  its  way.     And  it  ought  to  be  so  evident  that, 


*  See  Excursus  at  the  close  of  the  book. 


132  ROMANS. 

"  Abraham — the— father — of  us — not— of  works — was  made 
righteous,''  does  not  mean  a  question,  and  that  no  sentence  like 
it  can  be  found  that  does  mean  one,  that  it  should  win  respect, 
as  the  physicians  say,  ''  on  the  first  intention." 

But  though  James  gives  away  ''righteousness  by  works,'' 
technically  so  spoken  of,  and  joins  Paul,  yet  he  is  even  stronger 
than  Paul  in  asserting .  the  righteous  essence  of  faith.  He 
says  that  though  "  Abraham  was  not  made  righteous  by 
works,"  so  that  we  need  abandon  Paul's  ground,  or  forget  that 
works,  gendered  without  grace,  never  saved  any  man,  yet  that 
faith  was  the  intimate  working  principle  of  works  ;  faith  was 
the  intimate  inner  worker  along  with  works  or  inside  of  them 
(awr/pyet,  Jas.  2  :  22),  "and  by  the  works  was  the  faith 
made  real  (creAaw^;?)."  He  insists  upon  the  faith,  and  he 
insists  upon  it  by  the  quotation  of  this  same  passage,  "  Bia 
Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  to  him  as  righteous- 
ness "  {ib.  V.  23).  With  this  testimony  of  James  that  "  the 
faith,  aside  from  the  works,  is  dead  "  {ib.  v.  20),  and  with  the 
testimony  of  Paul  that  "  faith  aside  from  works  of  law  makes 
(us)  righteous  "  (3  :  28),  we  are  fetched  quite  up  to  the  neces- 
sary sense  :— that  (as  to  the  getting  of  ''  righteousness"  sub- 
jectively, or  to  our  becoming  less  sinful)  works  stirred  by 
preaching,  or  which  are  set  out  upon  under  the  thunders  of 
the  law  (that  and  nothing  else),  make  no  man  righteous  ;  but 
that  faith  (which  is  the  great  commanded  work,  and  which 
owns  by  its  very  nature  *  the  insufficiency  of  the  flesh)  when 
it  "  comes  by  hearing  "  (10  :  17),  and  is  the  gift  of  the  asked 
for  efficiency  of  the  Spirit,  is  itself  our  "  righteousness^'  and 
that  this  was  what  Phinehas  had  when  "  he  believed  God," 
and  when  a  righteous  act,  full  of  grace,  was  "  reckoned  to 
him  as  righteousness"  (Ps.  106  :  31). 

4.  But  to  him  that  works  anything  out,  the  pay  is 
not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt ;  5.  But  to  him  who 
does  not  work  the  thing  out,  but  believes  on  Him  who 
makes  the  ungodly  righteous,  his  faith  is  reckoned  as 
righteousness. 

*  James  has  this  idea.  "  Faith,  if  it  have  not  works,  is  dead  accoiding  to 
its  very  self"  (2  :  17). 


CHAPTER  IV.  133 

To  go  back  (3  :  24)  : — "  Redeynpiion  "  was  a  total  purchase, 
to  which  man  owes  as  much  his  dehverance  as  tlioughthe  sub- 
stitution were  made  twice,  and  man  were  blessed  with  the  two- 
fold transference,  first,  of  his  guilt  to  Christ  and,  second,  of 
Christ's  righteousness  to  him  as  his  obedience.  In  fighting 
against  this  last,  and  condemning  it  as  a  myth  conceived  by 
Luther,  we  are  in  danger  all  the  time  of  being  imagined  to 
lessen  the  Redeemer.  Let  us  be  always  going  back  : — Sin  at 
the  first  stroke  is  helpless.  Like  a  stone  loosed  from  human 
hand,  it  gravitates  endlessly.  The  tall  archangel,  when  he 
sinned,  fell  into  a  pit  literally  bottomless  ;  and  nothing  can 
arrest  the  law  as  he  goes  on  perpetually  downward.  It  is  a 
horrible  idea.  And  there  it  is  that  our  religion  should  have 
taken  hold  more  of  our  thought.  To  make  us  righteous  is 
deliverance  itself.  To  save  us  torment  is  more,  in  our  view, 
but  less,  in  the  eternal  redemption.  "  How  shall  man  become 
righteous  with  Cod  "  (Job  9:2)?  is  the  great  problem  of  the 
gospel.  It  belittles  this  to  divide  the  plan  of  mercy.  We  had 
a  great  ci^rse.  The  devils  sank  under  it.  Redemption  came 
to  remove  it.  And  Christ,  in  order  to  put  it  away,  endured 
sufferings  which  He  did  not  deserve,  and  they  were  imputed 
to  us.  Of  course  we  ennoble  everything  if  we  consider  that 
sufficient.  Christ's  righteousness  we  do  not  actually  need  if 
He  has  bought  for  us  a  plenary  pardon.  For  let  us  look  at 
that  once  more.  If  He  pardon,  taking  His  own  time  to  the 
work,  could  He  leave  us  sinful  ?  For  that  is  the  very  curse. 
And  if  He  leave  us  not  sinful,  but  in  His  own  gradual  way 
make  us  righteous,*  what  did  Luther  do  but  emasculate  that 
triumph  ?  for  if  the  good  God  pardon  me  to  the  very  last  of 
my  transgression,  what  do  I  further  need  if  He  gradually  com- 
plete my  righteousness  ? 

To  do  this,  He  drives  me  to  ''faiths  That  is,  He  makes  no 
promises  unless  I  seek  Him,  and  He  counsels  me  to  seek  Him, 

*  As  Augustine  says,  "  Begfinning  to  be  justified,  and  to  receive  the  power 
of  doing  right  '"  (ad  Simp.,  vol.  4,  lib.  1),  by  a  "  justification  here  imperfect 
i  .  us"  (vol.  5,  p.  867),  such  that  "  when  our  hope  shall  be  completed,  then 
our  justification  shall  be  completed,"   (ib.  p.  790). 


134  ROMANS. 

recognizing  as  distinctly  as  I  can  the  work  of  my  Redeemer. 
Why  this  is  necessary  I  cannot  distinctly  say.  "  Now  to  him 
that  works  the  pay  is  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt." 
If  I,  without  ''grace,''  either  from  scorning  it  or  knowing 
little  about  it,  set  out  to  be  a  better  man,  just  as  Satan 
might  set  out  to  lift  himself  from  hell  ;  even  though  we  differ 
from  Satan  and  have  redemption  ;  and  even  though  we  differ 
more  than  that  and  have  the  gospel,  and  have  the  law  of 
it  thundered  from  Sinai  ;  yet  if  we  reject  the  gospel,  and  spurn 
the  grace  of  it,  and  refuse  the  prayers  of  it,  and  in  our  strength 
undertake  to  obey  its  laws,  we  are  neglecting  the  whole  spirit 
of  God's  administration  ;  we  are  treating  the  thing  as  though 
it  were  to  be  wrought  out  in  the  way  of  wage  and  payment  ; 
we  are  forgetting  the  insufficiency  even  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  saint  ;  and  we  are  altogether  losing  sight  of  the  fact 
that  by  believing  deference  to  a  Redeemer  we  have  entered  a 
school  of  grace,  which  does  by  contrast  little  now,  but  incom- 
parably much  as  time  rolls  away. 

6.  Even  as  also  David  speaks  of  the  blessedness  of  the 
man  to  whom  God  reckons  righteousness  aside  from 
works  ;— 

7.  Blessed  are  they  whose  transgressions  were  put  away, 
And  whose  sins  were  covered  over  ; 

8.  Blessed  is  the  man  whose  sin  God  will  not  reckon. 

The  adverse  criticism  that,  because  these  two  latter  verses 
seem  forensic,  therefore,  the  result  must  be,  can  now  be  easily 
answered.  The  effect  of  pardon  must  necessarily  be  holiness  ; 
otherwise  the  pardon  is  nothing.  And  as  to  saying  that  a 
forensic  pardon  cannot  show  itself  in  a  subjective  righteous- 
ness, that  would  be  to  forget  that  a  forensic  condemnation 
does  show  itself  in  a  subjective  sinfulness  (i  :  24,  26,  28  ; 
Mar.  3  :  29,  see  var.  lee),  and  that  the  great  curse  forensically 
is,  to  be  abandoned  to  sin  as  the  result  of  previous  wrong- 
doing (Hos.  4  :  17).  David,  therefore,  is  a  strong  ally  to  Paul 
in  teaching  that  though  Abraham  was  righteous,  and  righteous 
in  a  very  remarkable  faith,  and  most  righteous,  so  that  he 
could  glory  before  his  fellow  men,  yet  that  he  had  no  cause  of 


CHAPTER  IV.  J 35 

boasting  ''before  God''  because  he  had  not  earned  his  righteous- 
ness as  a  workman  does  his  pay,  but  had  heired  it,  and  in  a 
most  imperfect  state  through  the  forgiveness  of  the  Redeemer. 
"Reckons."  This  word  puts  before  us  plainly  the  putative 
character  of  our  "  righteousness r  Because  it  is  not  Christ's 
righteousness,— that  does  not  make  it  less  necessary  to  show 
its  putative  cast.  It  is  putative  in  that  it  is  wholly  sinfulness. 
Sinfulness-grown-less  is  the  whole  of  a  Christian's  righteous- 
ness. And  it  is  putative  also  in  its  promise,  which  the  Bible 
strikingly  puts  before  us  where  it  says,  "  We,  in  the  Spirit,  by 
faith  wait  for  the  hope  of  righteousness"  (Gal.  5:5). 
''Righteousness''  is  therefore  reckoned  where  it  really  does  not 
exist  (v.  6),  and  sinfulness  refuses  to  be  reckoned  where  it 
does  (v.  8)  ;  and  yet  the  **  .r//z  "  and  \h^  "  righteousness''  2iT^ 
both  now  subjective  in  the  way  that  we  have  distinctly 
explained. 

"  Put  away  "  does  not  mean,  solely,  ''forgiven  "  ( E.  V.  <S:  Re.) ; 
but  we  do  not  wish  to  disturb  the  main  point.  The  preg- 
nant  use  of  a^/;?,^^  might  be  a   subject   of  separate  discussion. 

9.  Was  this  blessedness,  therefore,  upon  the  circum- 
cision, or  also  upon  the  uncircumcision  ?  for  we  say,  Faith 
was  reckoned  to  Abraham  as  righteousness.  10.  How  was 
it  then  reckoned  ?  When  he  was  in  circumcision,  or  uncir- 
cumcision ?    Not  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircumcision. 

Not  even  in  his  "faith"  was  "Abraham"  to  show  a 
monopoly  for  the  circumcised  ;  for  Paul  remembers  that  he 
was  himself  uncircumcised  when  he  achieved  his  faith. 

11.  And  he  received  a  sign  in  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  when  uncircum- 
cised, that  he  might  become  a  father  of  all  those  who 
believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised,  that  the  right- 
eousness might  be  reckoned  to  them  ;  12.  And  a  father  of 
circumcision  to  those  not  of  circumcision  only,  but  who 
also  walk  in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of  our  father  Abraham, 
which  he  had  when  uncircumcised. 

This  is  very  Zwinglian.  "  Circumcision"  was  "a  sign," 
therefore.  Instead  of  being  relied  upon  as  even  Reformers 
have  relied  upon  baptism,  it  was  but  an  instrument  for  making 


136  ROMANS. 

impressive  what  had  been  achieved  already.  It  was  a  "  seal ; '» 
that  is  an  impressed  token  of  fidelity  to  a  "faith"  had  before 
hand  ;  and  a  sacrament ;  an  occasion  for  an  oath  which  was  to 
bind,  in  case  it  was  fulfilled,  God  and  the  believing  ^'Abraham'* 
He  was  "a  father"  about  as  Tubal  Cain  was  (Gen.  4  :  22). 
The  devil  (Jo.  8  :  44)  and  God  (Matt.  23  :  9)  and  Christ 
(Is.  53  :  10)  and  the  church  (Is.  49  :  20,  21  ;  Gal.  4  :  26)  are 
parents  in  a  much  more  intimate  way.  As  ''  Jabal  was  the 
father  of  such  as  have  cattle  "  (Gen.  4  :  20),  so  Abraham 
"of  all  them  that  believe,"  viz.,  as  the  great  exemplar 
"  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,"  that  is  of  that  ''  by 
courtesy  "  or  putative  ''  righteousness  "  which  consists  of  ''/aitA  " 
at  first,  till  it  grow  unspotted  (Eph.  5  :  27)  in  the  garden  of 
the  Lord.  "  Though  they  be  not  circumcised  "  {61  aKpof^varlag). 
This  is  that  use  of  did,  as  meaning  a  neeessa?y  accom- 
paniment (see  comments  1:2;  2  :  27)  ;  a  very  important  and 
a  very  unobserved  Greek  usage  ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  text, 
"  Neither  with  {did)  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves  "  (Heb. 
9  :  12),  or  of  the  text,  "By  (dm)  whom  also  He  made  the 
worlds  "  (Heb.  i  .-2),  decisively  crucial  in  its  elenchtic  deter- 
minations. "  And  a  father  of  circumcision ; "  that  is  of  the 
true  "  baptism"  (Gal.  3  :  27)  which  the  "■  u7icircumcision"  may 
become  (2  :  26),  even  if  it  is  never  "-circumcised,''  if  it  "walk 
in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of  Abraham  which  he  had  when  " 
an  "  uncircumcised  "  Gentile. 

13.  For  not  by  law  was  the  promise  to  Abraham,  or  to 
his  seed,  that  he  should  be  heir  to  a  world,  but  by  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  14.  For  if  they  who  were  of  law 
were  heirs,  the  faith  has  been  made  void,  and  the  promise 
utterly  in  vain. 

"By  law  "would  have  abundant  meaning  if  it  were  said 
that  '^  law  "  did  not  make  "the  promise  to  Abraham,"  for  the 
'*  laiv  "  made  no  such  ''promise."  On  the  contrary  it  made  an 
adversative  threat.  But  "  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  that 
is,  a  betterness  of  moral  behavior,  taking  its  seed  and  original 
*' substance  "  (Heb.  11  :  i)  in  ''faith"  did.  "Abraham" 
waking  up  in  answer  to  his  prayers  to  a  new  moral  light,   did 


CHAPTER  IV.  137 

find  in  that  illumination  a  '" promise"  oi  everything.  Agar 
gendered  to  bondage,  for  it  simply  commanded  the  gospel 
without  imprinting  it  ;  but  the  "  new  covenant  "  was  altogether 
different.  It  inscribed  the  law,  and  this  inscription  inwardly, 
which  is  the  "  rii:;/iUousHt'ss  of  faith  "  (by  which  is  meant  that 
**  righteousness  "  which  is  ''faith  ")  makes  "  the  promise  "  with- 
out an  //,  and  without  the  alternation  of  any  threatening. 
This  would  do,  therefore,  if  this  were  the  only  verse  ;  but  the 
next  verse  creates  a  difference.  "For  if  they  who  were  of 
law  were  heirs."  Were  heirs,  therefore,  nmst  be  the  idea  ; 
not  were  promised  heirship.  "  By  laiu,"  therefore,  must  be 
like  ''  by  imcircumcision  "  in  the  eleventh  verse,  which  we  had 
to  translate  ^^  though  they  be  fiot  circumcised.''  It  has  the 
did  of  vital  accompaniment''  '•'■  Not  by  law  was  the  promise  to 
Abraham  "  in  such  a  sense  as  that  because  he  had  the  ^^  law," 
therefore  he  had  the  promise.  What  would  be  the  meaning 
then  of  the  adversative  threatening  ;  for  we  are  to  see  pre- 
sently that  "the  law  works  wrath"  (v.  15)?  But  '^  by  a 
righteousness  "  that  never  "  'u'orks  wrath"  that  is,  a  betterment 
of  his  moral  nature,  coming  to  him  and  consisting  in  a  gigantic 
'^  faith  " — '*  by  "  that,  in  the  sense  of  a  vital  accompaniment 
(did),  the  ''promise"  did  come,  and  that  in  the  most  splendid 
possible  amplitude.  *' Heir  to  a  world."  "In  thee  and  in 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed  " 
(Gen.  22  :  17).  **  God  gave  our  father  Abraham  possession 
of  the  heavens  and  earth  "  (Tauchuma,  Commentary  on  the 
Pentateuch).  "  Faith  made  void."  What  would  be  the  sense 
of  a  "promise  "  conditioned  on  "faith"  if  men  enjoyed  it 
without  the  condition,  and  the  rule  were  that  all  "  who  were 
of  law  were  heirs,"  that  is,  who  heard  the  ''  law"  or  who 
were  of  ""the  seed"  to  whom  God  sent  it?  Besides,  the 
"  law  "  had  other  and  deeper  uses,  and  even  some  contrary  to 
those  to  which  it  had  been  put  by  superstition  ; 

15.   For  the  law  works  wrath,  but  where  there  is  no  law, 
there  is  no  transgression. 

So  exceedingly  opposite  to   Phariseeism  was   "law"   that, 
instead  of  working  life,  it  worked  death.     Each  gift  of  "  law  " 


138  ROMANS. 

implied  a  deeper  sentence.  "  But."  So  fine  is  this  6k  (I  mean 
so  delicate)  that  only  our  Revisionists  retain  it.  The  E.  V. 
has  ^^for."  So  has  the  Receptus  :  though  there  is  no  strength 
for  that  varied  reading.  The  authority  is  with  de,  and  6k 
never  means  ^^  for.''  Insisting  upon  ^^  but,"  there  does  appear 
this  adversative  significance.  "  Law  "  cannot  save  a  man  any 
more  than  the  plea,  "  Thou  hast  taught  in  our  streets."  In 
fact  the  more  street-teaching,  the  more  curse  upon  unbelief. 
*' ^/^/ "  there  is  one  deliverance  in  the  direction  of  law,  if  it 
could  possibly  be  shown  forth.  That  is,  where  it  entirely 
keeps  away,  and  has  no  trace  of  itself  in  heart  or  conscience, 
as  in  a  born  idiot,  who  never  in  any  arena  of  life  has  a  moral 
idea,  there,  of  course,  there  can  be  no  "  wrath,"  for  there 
can  be  "  no  transgression." 

16.  Wherefore  it  is  of  faith,  so  that  it  is  through  grace ;  sa 
that  the  promise  is  sure  to  all  the  seed ;  not  to  that  which 
is  of  the  law  only,  but  also  to  that  which  is  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham  (who  is  a  father  of  us  all;  17.  As  has  been 
written,  A  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee),  in 
the  eye  of  that  God  whom  he  believed,  who  gives  life  to 
the  dead,  and  calls  the  things  that  are  not  as  though  they 
were. 

"  It ; "  that  is  the  heirdom,  or  this  whole  effected  blessing 
instead  of  an  offered  one.  "  Is  of  faith."  It  is  promised  to 
'=  faith  "  under  the  "  old  covenant,"  and  consists  in  '^ faith'* 
under  the  "  new."  It  is  in  its  very  "  substance  "  (Heb.  ii  :  i) 
'^  faith "  considered  as  a  beginning,  and  is  promised  to 
''faith  "  in  its  continuance  and  completion.  "  So  that  it  is 
through  grace."  First,  because  it  is  built  upon  a  redemption. 
No  such  ''faith  "  can  be  bred  in  Satan.  Second,  because  it  is 
not  really  righteous.  It  is  only  an  illuminated  sight,  making 
us  less  sinful.  Nevertheless,  thirdly,  it  is  spoken  of  as  right- 
eous, and  rendered  acceptable  in  the  beloved  (Eph,  i  :  6)  ; 
and,  fourth,  it  grows,  and  unless  we  quench  it  by  apostasy 
(Heb.  6  :  4-6),  it  becomes  a  light  shining  brighter  to  the  per- 
fect day.  It  is  in  no  sense  by  works,  except  in  that  great 
sense  that  it  is  itself  a  master  work.  But  it  is  of  ail  things  else 
a  "grace."     It  is  the  grace   of  all   graces.     It  is  that  which 


CHAPTER  IV.  139 

acknowledges   ''grace  "   in  its  very  act.     For,  beginning  away 
back  where  it  was  not  saving,  it  sought  God  ;  and  how  can  a 
lost  wretch  seek  the  Almighty  without,  in  the   name  of  some 
hoped-for  redemption,  appealing  to  the  simplest   ''grace  "  for 
a  moral  return  to  life  ?     "  So  that."     Paul  is  speaking  of  what 
things  are,  not  what   they   were   designed  to   be.     This  must 
affect  both   im  and   kg.     It  is   not  "to  the  end  that''    (E.    V. 
and  Re.)    or  "that"   (ib.)   in   the   intentional   sense,   but    "so 
that "  in  the   way   of  consequence.     Some   men   deny   this  as 
possible  in  the  Greek  ;  but  the  slenderest  bunch  of  sentences 
will  settle  it  (Jo.  9:2;  Rom.  11:   1 1 ;  5  ;  20).    ''  Faith  "  is  not 
what  it  is  ///  order  that  it  might  be  of  "grace  ;  "  for  how  could 
it  be  different  ?     But  it  is  so  with  this  plain  result,  that  if  it  is 
a    penitent  and   humiliated   trust,  and,   as   such,   of  a    moral 
nature,  it  admits  grace  by  its  very   act,  and   counts  in   every 
thing  upon  a  forensic  propitiation.     "  Seed."     The  true  seed 
undoubtedly.     Not  that  which  is  "by  blood  "  (Jo.  i  :    13),  or 
physical  generation,  but  "  that  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham, who  is  a  father  of  us  all."     "  That  only  which  is  of  the 
law  "    (E.    V.   and   Re.)   is   therefore   a  dreadful  error  ;    right 
athwart  all  from  the  very  beginning.      That  which  is  of  the  law 
was  to  have  no  chance.    The  position  of  ^lovov  (''  only  ")  is  dex- 
terously significant.     "  Not  only  that  which  is  of  the  law  "     (E. 
V.  and  Re.),  would  mean  that  while   that  7uhich  is  of  the  law 
would    be   saved,   so  might    something  else;  but  "Not  that 
which  is  of  the  law  only  "  would  mean  that,  while  multitudes 
who  were  "  of  the  huv  "  might  be  saved,  they   could    not  be  if 
they  were  **  of  the  law  only,''  that  is,  if  their  only  plea  or  chance 
had  been  that  they   had   "the  oraclesr     "  But  just."     "But 
also''  (E.  V.  and  Re.)  would  throw  us  back  upon  the  old  mis- 
take.    We  would  be  saying  that  there  are  two  classes  of  heirs, 
they  that  were  of  law,  and  they  that  H'cre  of  faith,  whereas   the 
^\s\:mz\.m^^mx\g\'i.\.\\^'ithey  that  were  of  law  \\\\'g\\'i  be   saved, 
but  not  on  that  account,  but  that  they  and  all  others  must  be 
saved  by  being  "  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  a  father  of  us^ 
all."     We  will  not  stay  to  consider  that   being  "  of  the  law  " 
might  alter  its  sense  for  the  occasion,  and  that  they  which  are 


I40  ROMANS. 

"  of  faith  "  might  mean  outside  men  who  had  only  "  the  faith  " 
and  not  the  "  law  "  of  Abraham.  Such  changes  do  happen 
(2  :  14  ;  Gal.  2:15;  Eph.  2  :  3),  and  are  grandly  important. 
But  here  there  is  no  such  special  necessity.  We  should  be 
straining  the  grammar  if  we  ignored  the  place  of  judvov 
("  only  "),  and  did  not  observe  that,  by  strictly  marking  it,  we 
hold  everything  to  the  sense  of  the  apostle.  "  But  Just,'*  or 
^^  but  indeed"  ox '''' but  really''  To  say  that  Kai  i^'' and")  can 
not  have  such  a  meaning,  especially  after  dAAd  ("  ^2// '">,  and 
after  a  former  clause  with  ov //dwv  (";/£?/ only  ")  is  a  mistake. 
"  Not  only  so,  but  we  even  (or  really)  glory  in  God  "  (5  :  3, 
11)  occurs  but  a  few  paragraphs  further  on.  ^'  Not  only  so,  but 
even  they  who  have  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  (E.  V. 
and  Re.)  we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves  "  (Rom.  8  :  23). 
"  In  the  eye  of  that  God."  "-Faith"  is  among  the  things 
h  T^  KpviTTC)  [" hidden  J  "  see  2  :  29).  It  must  stand  ^^  the  eye" 
of  the  Almighty.  The  parenthesis  has  been  fixed  differently. 
Some  (E.  V.  and  Re.)  make  the  spiritual  fatherhood  to  be  that 
which  confronts  God  (KaThavri),  or  is  to  be  judged  of  '^  in  his 
eye."  It  makes  little  difference.  Often  a  text  would  be  under- 
stood if  there  were  no  parenthesis  marked  out.  The  sole 
criterion  is  ''faith."  It  is  the  sovereign  test  either  for  Jews  or 
Gentiles.  And  being  such  a  pivot  for  the  whole,  we  must  be 
sufe  of  its  nature  as  "  righteousness  "  (v.  13),  and  the  only  out- 
side judge  is  the  eye  of  the  Almighty.  "  Who  gives  life  to  the 
dead."  This  eulogium  just  here  is  nobly  pertinent.  The  old 
grazier,  when  he  was  pointed  to  the  stars,  and  called  upon  at 
his  time  of  life  to  believe  that  he  was  to  be  the  ''father  "  of 
innumerable  princes,  surely  had  need  of  some  such  idea  of 
Deity.  "  Against  hope  ;  "  of  all  other  men,  he  was  called  upon 
"  to  believe  upon  hope  ;  "  and,  therefore,  just  such  a  "  God" 
must  appear  to  this  old  shepherd's  vision  ;  a  God  who  can 
quicken  the  dead,  and  call  "  things  that  are  not  as  though 
they  were." 

18.  Being  a  person  who  against  hope  believed  hopefully, 
so  as  to  become  a  father  of  many  nations,  according  to  that 
which  had  been  spokeD ,  Thus  shall  thy  seed  be.  19.  And,  not 


CHAPTER  IV.  141 

being  weak  in  faith,  ho  considered  not  his  own  body,  now 
deadened  (he  being  about  a  hundred  years  old),  nor  yet  the 
deadening  of  Sarah's  womb  ;  20.  But,  as  to  the  promise  of 
God,  he  doubted  not  in  unbelief,  but  was  made  strong  in 
faith,  giving  glory  to  God,  21.  And  being  fully  persuaded 
that  what  He  had  promised  He  is  able  really  to  perform. 
22.  Wherefore  truly  it  was  reckoned  to  him  as  righteous- 
ness." 

"Being  a  person."  ^or  has  that  condensed  sense  as 
a  pronoun  (see  comment  on  3  :  26  ;  5  :  12)  that  reminds  us 
that  if  the  Greek  had  simply  meant  to  say  ^^w/io  "  (E.  V.  t\:  Re.) 
it  miglu  have  employed  a  participial  method,  and  not  the  pro- 
noun ;  and  therefore,  in  beginning  a  new  assertion,  it  is  well  to 
give  it  a  greater  amplitude  in  the  English.  "Against." 
Ilapd  rather  means  asu/e  from.  There  being  no  possible 
"hope."  'Err' f/.Ti(5i  rather  means  " ///(V/  hopc^''  and  ''believed 
upon  hope  "  would  not  be  altogether  vague  ;  but  if  we  change 
it  to  *'  I'/i  hope,''  it  might  be  better  to  make  it  plainer  by  saying 
''  hopefully y  We  do  not  believe  in  hope,  but  in  God  '' hope- 
fully ^  "He  that  plows  ought  to  plow  ''hopefully"  (i  Cor. 
9  :  10,  "  in  hope,''  E.  V.  &  Re.).  "  So  as  to."  Alford  insists 
that  Lva  and  uq  always  mean  intention^  throwing  to  the  winds 
such  cases  as  these  (Jo.  9:2;  Gal.  5:17;  Lu.  8  :  10  ;  Jer. 
44  :  8,  Sep.).  He  hardly  can  maintain  himself.  It  is  more 
broadly  true  that  Abraham,  out  of  the  spontaneity  of  his  own 
goodness,  believed  God,  than  that  either  God  or  he  cultivated 
the  faith  in  order  that  he  might  "  become  a  father  of  many 
nations."  "  Not  being  weak  in  faith— but  was  made  strong 
in  faith,"  present  us  again  the  subjective  nature  of  the  dative. 
The  weakness  would  have  been  the  "  weak  faith,"  and  the 
strength  such  as  it  was,  was  undoubtedly  the  "faith."  And 
therefore  where  ft  speaks  of  ht'ing  "  made  righteous  by  faith" 
(dative,  3  :  28),  or  "purifying  by  faith"  (dative,  Acts  15  :  9), 
the  "faith  "  must  be  the  subjective  righteousness.  Awafidu 
to  n/ahe  stroui^^,  a^tdu,  to  mahe  worthy,  veKp6u,  to  mahe 
dead,  and  6iKai6u,  to  mahe  righteous,  all  have  subjective 
rights,  and  it  must  be  a  strong  reason  that  shall  turn  aside  any 
of     these    words     in    ou.      "Considered  not."       "Not"    is 


142  ROMANS. 

absent  from  many  MSS.,  and  is  given  up  by  the  Revisionists. 
It  makes  little  difference.  If  we  are  to  erase  it,  then  it  would 
mean  that  Abraham  fully  considered  these  things,  and  yet 
(v.  20)  believed.  And  if  we  are  to  retain  it,  then  it  means  that 
he  did  not  regard  or  care  about  them.  "  Deadened ; "  the 
past  participle  of  the  verb  to  7nake  dead  (veKpouy  see  above). 
"Deadening."  Nf^pwa^c,  the  act  or  fact  of  '^deadening'' 
bears  the  same  relation  to  vnKpooy  to  77iake  dead^  that 
diKaioioiq,  a  fTiaking  righteous  in  the  verse  below  (v.  25) 
bears  to  dtKaiou,  to  7nake  righteous.  "Doubted  not  in 
unbelief,"  and,  once  more,  "  made  strong  in  faith."  These 
are  again  instances  of  the  dative  (see  above  v.  19).  The 
^'' imbelief  was  the  doubt.,  and  the  ^^ faith  "  was  the  streTigth^ 
and  why  not,  in  corresponding  grammar,  "  the  faith  "  also 
"the  righteousness"  (v.  22)?  "Really"  and  "truly." 
'^A/so''  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  in  either  of  these  cases  (vs.  21,  22) 
would  be  miserably  unmeaning.  kuI,  with  Paul,  has  the 
strongest  Hebraistic  tendencies,  and  we  should  watch  them. 
Vav  (Heb.)  is  more  versatile  than  the  classic  Kai 

23.  But  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone  that  it  was 
reckoned  to  him,  24.  But  also  for  our  sakes,  to  whom  it 
will  be  reckoned  when  we  believe  upon  Him  who  raised 
Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead ;  25.  Who  was  given  over 
for  the  sake  of  our  oflTences,  and  raised  for  the  sake  of 
making  us  righteous. 

It  is  fearful  exegesis  that  makes  this  refer  to  the  body.  If 
Christ  had  never  died  (we  mean  physically),  and  God  had 
tormented  Him,  as  indeed  He  did,  in  other  and  more  life- 
enduring  ways,  and  if  Christ  had  never  risen,  but  after  sufficient 
sacrifice  in  pain  had  been  carried  like  Enoch  to  Paradise  (it 
would  not  have  done  so  well,  or  else  that  would  have  been  the 
plan),  but  it  would  have  done  just  as  well,  as  far  as  we  have 
any  knowledge.  We  run  wild  with  mere  rhetoric.  Because 
the  Bible  tersely  talks  of  our  Saviour's  "blood,"  we  take  that 
particular  secretion,  and  think  it  actually  did  bear  a  central 
part  in  our  Lord's  atonement.  The  cross  is  equally  colored 
up.     God   may  have  never  seen  a  cross,  and  yet,  incarnate  in 


CHAPTER  IV.  143 

a  man,  could  have  carried  Him  through  greater  torments  (as 
He  did),  and  just  as  sufficient,  as  far  as  we  can  divine.  It  is 
shameful  that  all  the  passages  about  rising  should  be  attributed 
to  that  adventure  at  the  sepulchre.  That  was  a  great  event, 
and  was  often  alluded  to  (Acts  10  :  41  ;  i  Cor.  15  14),  and 
was  a  glorious  evidence  (Acts  i  :  22  ;  4  :  33),  and  was  a  great 
soteriological  occurrence,  for  it  restored  the  whole  man  to  life, 
and  sent  Him  presently  to  the  glory  of  His  kingdom.  But  it 
is  a  shame  even  to  speak  of  it  in  this  present  text.  "  Given 
over"  (did,  7uith  accusative,  ''  ofi  accointtof")  "for  the  sake 
of  our  oflfences.'*  This  was  the  whole  broad  account  of  our 
Saviour's  sacrifice.  To  dream  of  it  as  happening  with  Pilate,  in 
any  sense  but  as  an  insignificant  part  of  it,  is  to  turn  the  whole 
scene  into  a  superstition.  **  Gii'cn  occr."  Christ  was  a  man 
descended  through  His  mother  from  the  first  apostate.  Christ 
was  God,  entered  at  His  conception  by  the  one  persona! 
Jehovah.  Christ  as  man  would  have  inherited  from  His  race 
actual  sinfulness,  for  the  ]^ible  tells  us  that  He  was  "  a  dead 
man  according  to  the  flesh  "  (i  Pet.  3  :  18),  that  He  was  **  a 
saved  one  *'  (Zech.  9  :  9,  see  the  participle),  that  ''  He  offered 
for  Himself  as  well  as  for  the  people"  (Heb.  9  :  7),  that  He 
was  the  first  begotten  from  the  dead  (Rev.  i  :  5),  and  that, 
though  He  was  pure  from  sin  for  reasons  that  I  am  about  to 
state,  yet  that  He  had  '*  infirmity  "  (Matt.  26  :  41),  nay,  that 
He  was  *'  compassed  about  with  it  (Heb.  5  :  2),  and  that  "  He 
was  tempted  in  all  respects  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin  "  (Heb. 
4  :  15).  But  Christ  as  God  revolutionized  all  these  calamities. 
He  "  raised "  the  sufferer.  That  is  the  almost  constant 
meaning  of  the  "  resurrection  "  (4  :  24,  25  ;  Eph.  2  :  6).  He 
entered  the  mother.  He  (nrrs/ujc/cmu'd  her.  He  put  the 
**  power  "  of  God  upon  her.  By  sheer  strength  He  kept  that 
cursed  offspring  from  ever  enduring  sin.  He  kept  Him 
from  scarce  anything  else  of  curse  or  misery.  He 
knew  no  sin  ;  neither  was  guile  found  in  His  mouth. 
And,  as  being  God  impersonate,  if  "  infirmity "  had 
been  all,  we  might  conceive  of  Him  as  enduring  pain 
enough    for     a    personal    expiation,    and    soon    summoning 


144 


ROMANS. 


"  twelve  legions  of  angels  "  to  translate  Him  to  His  heritage. 
But  that  was  not  what  He  was  created  to  accomplish.  He 
was,  therefore,  ^^ given  over^''  as  our  text  expresses  it,  for  our 
mountains  of  transgressions,  as  well  as  for  His  own  lighter 
implication  in  His  parentage.  His  struggle  was  made  difficult. 
His  temptation  became  immense.  It  came  on  Him  in  great 
maelstroms  of  trial,  till  He  cried  out  in  fear  of  sinking.  It 
came  upon  Him  in  the  wilderness,  when  the  dead  fast  of  forty- 
days  was  allowed  to  unman  Him  horridly  for  the  trial,  by  its 
clammy  and  livid  sinking  upon  His  spirit.  It  broke  out  in 
blood  among  the  olive  trees  (Lu.  xxii  :  44)  ;  and  just  at  the 
last,  when  death  seemed  alone  all  that  was  possible  to  save 
Him,  He  shrieked  out,  as  if  lost,  as  though  God  had  at  last  for- 
saken him — all  this  positively  without  sin.  "  Who  in  the  days 
of  His  flesh,  when  He  had  offered  up  prayers  and  supplications 
with  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  Him  that  was  able  to  save 
Him  from  death  "  (certainly  not  physical  death,  for  then  He  was 
not  saved  at  all)  "  and  was  heard  in  that  He  feared  ;  though 
He  were  a  son,  yet  learned  He  obedience  by  the  things  that 
He  suffered  ;  and  being  made  perfect.  He  became  the  author  " 
(E.  V.  and  Re.),  better,  the  ground  or  reason,  the  sine  qua  non^ 
the  thing  forensically  required,  for  "  eternal  salvation  unto  all 
them  that  obey  Him"  (Heb.  5  :  7-9).  ''Given  over,"  there- 
fore, means  ^^  given  over  "  to  this  horrid  implication  more  than 
His  own  birth-nature  would  have  required;  and  ^^  raised'* 
loses  all  its  narrow  connection  of  His  rising  from  the  grave^ 
and  means  ^^  raised  from  (among)  the  dead  "  {^plural,  ek 
vEKpuv),  that  is,  that  He  fought  a  good  fight,  and  when 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world  were  laid  upon  Him,  and  accord- 
ingly when  He  was  exposed  to  a  temptation  whose  mortal 
anguish  (to  the  very  last  undeserved  through  His  strange  suc- 
cess in  the  battle)  would  be  an  equivalent  for  all  our  curse^ 
that  He  was  ''raised''  out  of  this  horrible  pit,  and  brought 
safe  to  His  eternal  dwelling.  "  For  the  sake  of  making  us 
righteous."  Here  it  is,  distilled  down  to  its  exquisite  hnality. 
Sin  is  the  great  curse.  A  spark  of  sin  would  have  exploded 
all  the  magazine   of  mercy.     Christ   shut   it   out,  but  with  an 


CHAPTER   V.  145 

agony  of  self-deliverance.  "  He  learned  obedience,"  as  trial 
became  stronger  by  its  previous  throes  (Heb.  v.  8). 
And  through  anguish  as  a  man,  and  by  sheer  omnipotence  as 
a  God,  He  was  "raised"  out  of  our  horrible  race  {tKvzKpLv), 
and,  needing  no  penalty  Himself,  bought  "righteous- 
ness," that  is,  an  escape  from  sinfulness,  for  us  miserable 
transgressors.  ""Making  us  righteous.*'  This  6iKaiuaic, 
enrightcousiug,  which  bears  the  same  relation  to  6LKaL6u  (to 
make  righteous^  that  veKpuaig,  a  deadening  v.  19),  does  to 
vtKpou  (to  }7iake  dead),  occurs  but  once  besides  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  in  the  next  chapter  (v.  18).  The 
phrase  there  is  ''a  making  righteous  of  life,''  the  meaning  being 
''a  making  righteous,"  or  a  making  holy  in  such  away  that 
"  life  "  shall  consist  in  it.  That  passage  is  so  near,  however, 
that  one  may  easily  turn  to  its  page,  and  we  need  not  repeat 
the  exposition. 


CHAPTER  V. 

1.  Wherefore,  having  been  made  righteous  by  faith,  let 
us  keep  possession  of  a  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  2.  Through  whom,  also,  we  have  kept  pos- 
session by  faith  of  the  entrance  given  into  this  grace 
wherein  we  have  been  standing,  and  let  us  exult  over  a 
hope  of  the  glory  of  God. 

"  Wherefore."  Because  the  things  just  referred  to  were 
not  written  for  Abraham's  sake  alone  (4  ;  23,  24),  but  for  ours 
who  imitate  Abraham  in  "  believing  on  Hitn  who  raised  Jesus 
our  Lord  from  the  dead,"  we  ought  to  make  Him  our  model  in 
all  respects,  and  especially  in  His  endurance  (ito/zotv-t,  v.  4), 
and  in  His  hoping  against  hope  (4:  18).  *' Having  been 
made  righteous  by  faith,"  which  is  just  the  thing  that  has 
been  declared  of  Abraham,  "  let  us  keep  possession  of  a 
peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This 
implies  the  possibility  of  our  not  keeping  possession  ;  for 
though  we  might  be  willing  to  im.agine  that  Paul  was  consid- 


146  ROMANS. 

ering  that  that  would  never  happen,  and  was  warning  against 
it  for  the  very  purpose  of  preventing  it,  yet  when  we  pile  all 
the  Scriptures  together  which  bear  upon  such  a  question,  they 
make  the  certain  "  perseverance  of  the  saints  "  fatal  to  a  con- 
sistent revelation  (see  comments  on  i:  ii  ;  8:  33-39  '»  ^^^^ 
Lu.  8:  13  ;  Ez.  18  :  24;  Heb.  6:  4,  6  ;  10  :  38).  "  Through 
whom  also  we  have  kept  possession;"  again  the  natural 
remark  to  make  if  apostasy  be  possible.  "  Let  us  keep 
possession  of  a  peace  with  God  through "  that  very  same 
"  Lord  Jesus  Christ  through  who7?i "  we  have  been  keep- 
ing possession  of  what  he  calls  the  "  introduction  "  {jTpoaayuyij) 
or,  as  we  translate  it,  "  the  entrance  given,**  liter- 
ally the  bringing  into,  that  is  the  incipiency  of  "  this  grace 
wherein  we  have  been  standing,**  and  then  as  a  further 
counsel  built  upon  the  precariousness  of  this  first  "  entrance  i?ito 
grace,"  let  us  "exult**  or  ^^  boast  ourselves'' — now,  in  what  ? 
A  certainty  ?  Or  in  a  full  gospel  fruition  ?  Not  at  all.  But 
"over**  just  what  Abraham  had,  that  is  "ahope*'(4:  18), 
and  '*  a  hope  "  of  exactly  that  which  we  should  imagine  ;  not 
of  "  righteousness,"  for  that  in  a  dim  way  we  have  already — 
that  lessened  sinfulness  which  consists  in  faith  ;  but  of  "the 
glory  of  God;"  that  perfect  righteousness,  which,  as  faith 
comes  by  looking  at  it  (see  i  :  17),  so  light  will  come  by  the 
same  means,  **  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  g/ory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  "  (2  Cor.  4  :  6),  the  entrance  into 
which  gives  us  ''^ faith,"  and  the  full  result  of  which  gives  us 
our  final  blessedness ;  just  what  John  speaks  of  when  he  says, 
"  When  He  shall  appear  we  shall  be  like  Him,  for  we  shall  see 
Him  as  He  is  (i  Jo.  3:  2). 

Godet  complains  :  **  No  exegete  has  been  able  to  account 
satisfactorily  for  this  imperative  "  (e;^"//?^,  "  let  us  have,"  Re., 
OT  ^' let  us  hold  fast")  *^  occuvr'mg  in  the  midst  of  our  didac- 
tic development."  But  give  up  "perseverance,"  and  give 
up  Luther's  "  justification,"  and  nothing  can  be  more  untrue. 
Load  on  those  theologic  weights,  and  we  grant  everything  ; 
but  what  is  that  but  saying  that  authoritative  Greek  works 
mischief  with  both  those  older  rationalisms. 


CHAPTER    r.  147 

Patriarchal  "  righUousness  "  was  a  "  righteousness  of  faith  " 
(4:  13)  ;  and  the  genitive  signifies  a  ''  righteousness  "  that 
consists  in  ^' faith."  To  throw  that  into  a  fuller  shape,  it  was 
a  '^ faith  "  so  bred  morally  by  the  Spirit  as  to  be  '*  reckoned"  to 
the  patriarch  "  as  righteousness."  Let  it  be  understood,  how- 
ever, it  was  only  ''■faith  ;  "  and  therefore,  though  moral  and 
answering  to  a  condition  of  diminished  sinfulness,  yet  it  did 
not  fulfill  the  law,  but  only  began  to.  It  gave  '•^ peace  with 
God"  that  is  a  cessation  of  enmity  (8  :  7),  because  it  is  the 
earnest  of  what  is  perfect,  and  the  pledge,  even  in  its  feeblest 
beginnings,  of  what  grace  will  add.  But  it  must  be  kept  up. 
**  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  As  the  branch  can  not  bear  fruit 
of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye 
abide  in  me"  (Jo.  15  :  4;.  '^Possession"  therefore,  must  be 
**  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;  "  and  Paul  urges  us,  in  view 
of  what  ''for  our  sakes  was  7uritten"  to  "keep  possession'* 
through  this  same  Christ,  just  as  we  have  been  keeping  posses- 
sion thus  far  of  what  he  characterizes  as  the  '*  introduction  "  or 
"  entrance  given"  into  the  "grace"  of  the  Redeemer;  still 
more,  to  "  keep  possession  "  boastingly,  as  Abraham  did  ;  for  he 
was  "  a  person  who  against  hope,  hopefully  believed  "  (4  :  18), 
answering  thoroughly  to  the  counsel,  "  Let  us  exult  (boast, 
Kavx^li^Oa^  see  4:  2  and  comment)  over  a  hope  of  the  glory  of 
God." 

When,  therefore,  Meyer  says  that  the  old  reading  of  the 
Receptus,  fxo,un;  "  7C'e  have  peace"  (E.  V.),  which  even  the  Revi- 
sionists give  up,  "  is  to  be  retained,"  and  gives  as  his  reason 
that  ixuuv\'  ("  let  us,  etc."),  "  though  very  strongly  attested,  is 
here  utterly  unsuitable"  (!)  ;  and  when  Shedd  says,  "We 
retain  i;to/ifv  {^' 7ue  have")  upon  dogmatic  grounds  (!), 
although  the  subjunctive  ex^^^  ("let  us  have")  is  by  far  the 
most  strongly  supported  ;  "  and  when  Alford,  strangest  of  all, 
bows  to  the  text  and  says,  *'  It  is  impossible  to  resist  the  strong 
manuscript  "  evidence,  "for,  indeed,  this  may  well  be  cited  as 
the  crucial  instance  of  overpowering  diplomatic  authority,"  and, 
then,  after  all,  rebels,  and  comments  differently,  we  may  well 
despair.     If  the  Reformed  did  give  a  twist  to  orthodoxy,  how 


148  ROMANS, 

-9 

are  we  to  mend  it,  if  they  may  now  give  a  twist  to  Scripture,  and 
where  glosses  otherwise  fail,  then  overset  the  text  that  they 
may  trample  upon  the  more  troublesome  revelation  ? 

3.  But  not  only  so  ;  let  us  even  exult  in  the  tribulations, 
knowing  that  the  tribulation  works  patience,  4.  But  the 
patience  probation  ;  and  the  probation  hope  ;  5.  And  the 
hope  makes  not  ashamed,  because  the  love  of  God  has  been 
poured  out  in  our  hearts  by  a  Holy  Spirit  given  unto  us. 

Paul  abides  singularly  close  to  the  point  at  issue.  We  are  to 
^Uxult  i7i  hope''  (v.  2).  Then,  by  a  most  unexpected  turn,  he 
tells  us  that  we  are  to  exult  in  trouble.  That  might  appear  to 
be  a  very  opposite  exultation  ;  but  see  how  he  brings  them 
together.  "  Tribulation  works  patience "  {iTzo^ovij  ;  liter- 
ally, "a  remainifig  under,''  that  is  to  say,  '' endurance")  \ 
"but'*  {6k,  for  there  is  a  slightly  adversative  idea  in  these 
sentences  as  they  seem  to  unite  such  apparent  opposites), 
**  the  patience,  probation."  Like  the  fable  of  the  faggots, 
now  that  the  great  apostle  unties  his  bundle,  each  stick  is  easily 
managed.  Sorrow,  patience.  Why  that,  of  course.  What  else 
could  it  work,  as  long  as  the  sufferer  "  keeps  possession  "  (v.  2)  ? 
P atience, proof .  Equally,  of  course.  For  that  is  what  God 
perpetually  aims  at,  the  putting  us  to  proof.  The  word  is  from 
(5o/cf/zdCw,  which  means  to  prove,  like  ores.  The  word  is 
6oKiiiri,  the  result  of  that  trial.  Sorrow,  like  a  fierce  heat, 
^Novks  patience.  Patience,  like  the  gold  in  ore,  exhibits  proof. 
And  then  the  rest  easily  follows  :  A  man's  '^proved  condition  " 
[poKLixi]),  demonstrated  to  him  by  his  ''  patience,'' hx^^d^'^''^  hope,'* 
and  so  the  apostle  comes  round  to  a  strong  inducement  for  the 
required  exultation  (v.  2). 

But  now  he  has  a  stronger.  "  Love  "  is  the  great  antidote 
to  fear  ;  and  the  absence  of  fear  is,  to  "  hope,"  what  the 
absence  of  sin  is,  to  righteousness.  Another  apostle  has  said, 
"  Perfect  love  casteth  out  fear  "  (i  Jo.  4:  18).  Paul  is  full 
of  this  grand  consummation.  He  seems  to  think  that  love  and 
fear  are  antagonisms.  "  God  has  not  given  us  a  spirit  of  fear, 
but  of  power  and  of  love  and  of  a  sound  mind  "  (2  Tim.  i  :  7). 
In  ecstasy  at  God's  love  pouring  itself  out  and  radiant  in  ours, 


CHAPTER   V.  149 

he  scoffs  at  fear.  "  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  It  is  Christ 
that  died.  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ  ? 
For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor 
principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to 
come,  nor  height  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature  shall  be 
able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord  "  (8  :  38,  39).  He  half  tears  himself  away, 
therefore,  from  lesser  considerations,  and  suddenly  announces, 
that  "  the  hope,"  that  is  M/i  '^  hope'" — the  ''hope"  of  Abra- 
ham and  of  every  believing  sinner — *'  makes  not  ashamed  " 
(the  favorite  Old  Testament  expression.  Job  6  :  20  ;  Ps.  34  :  5  ; 
Is.  20: 5).  And  why  ?  He  scorns  \.\\& patient  track  through  which 
he  has  been  arguing  his  way,  and  bursts  out  into  one  over- 
whelming reasoning.  ''Ashamed !'*  Why  not?  Because  of 
"  lovey  But  mark  the  completeness  of  the  reason  given. 
First,  because  of  "love''  That  itself  is  a  great  consideration. 
Because  the  "hope''  is  mixed  all  up  with  that  undoubting, 
unreasoning,  unfearing  principle  of  affection.  That  might  be 
ground  enough.  But  mark  the  dexterous  terseness.  Second, 
"  the  love  of  God."  This  has  become  Pauline  now.  "The 
glory  of  God''  (2  Cor.  4:6;  Rom.  9  :  23),  "  the  righteousness  of 
God"  (i  :  17),  "  the  7iame of  God"  {c)  :  17)  ;  these  are  all  things 
for  iv^n^uq  or  showings,  and  we  learn  to  read  them  as  such  as 
we  meet  them  anywhere.  The  apostle  bursts  upon  us  with 
the  most  express  of  all  ;  for,  thirdly,  he  makes  *'  the  love  of 
God  "  to  be  "  poured  out  in  our  hearts,"  and  leaves  no  doubt 
of  his  meaning,  for  he  says  it  is  "  by  a  holy  Spirit  given 
unto  us."  This  has  stood,  "  the  Holy  Spirit"  (Re.).  But  the 
Revisers  themselves  sometimes  doubt  (as  also  does  the  E.  V.) 
and  give  the  small  5(1:4;  i  ^<^)r.  2:12;  see  also  Rev.  11  :  11), 
and  notice,  too,  the  absence  of  the  article.  It  makes  not  the 
slenderest  difference.  A  holy  spirit  is  given  (Acts  6  :  10),  and 
a  Holy  Spirit  gives  (i  Cor.  2  :  13),  and  which  positively  should 
be  printed  in  the  text  it  is,  many  times,  unnecessary  to  ask,  and 
just  as  often  impossible  to  determine. 

6 — 1 1.     And  now,  with  this  fine  beginning,  Paul,  in  six  more 
verses,  goes  on  to  ennoble  "  the  love  "  and,  therefore,  **  the  hope" 


I50 


ROMANS. 


in  two  separate  particulars.  And  it  is  important  to  see  how 
this  passage  has  been  made  difficult  by  an  interwrapping  of 
these  different  reasonings  when  they  are  utterly  diverse.  Let 
us  mention  them.  One  is  that  "  the  love  "  which  is  to  be 
''*■  poured  i?ito''  ours,  or,  to  speak  more  after  the  pattern  of  pre- 
vious chapters,  which  is  to  be  "  revealed,"  like  any  other  trait 
of  "  God's  righteousness,  from  faith  to  faith,"  is  so  phenomenal 
as  therefore  to  be  well  suited  to  produce  wonderful  "  love  "  in 
us,  and,  therefore,  wonderful  "  hope  ;  "  but,  secondly,  and  on 
rational  grounds,  that  that  ^Wwpe"  is  wonderfully  promoted, 
because  such  an  amazing  "  love,'*  so  deep,  that  "  while  we 
were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us  "  (v.  8),  now  that  He  has 
died,  and  the  whole  expense  has  been  gone  to,  and  we  are 
actually  "  made  righteous,"  and,  as  Paul  truthfully  reports  it, 
"in  His  blood,"  that  is,  through  the  great  effect  of  His 
redemption,  "  much  more  "  may  justify  "  hope  "  and  embolden 
it  as  it  plumes  its  wing,  (i)  The  essential  buoyancy  of  "  lo7'e  " 
is  helped  by  (2)  the  rational  confidences  of  "  hope,"  as  it  assures 
itself  that  such  a  ^Wove,"  having  "  ?^iacle  (us)  righteous  by  His 
blood"  will  save  us  "  from  wrath  through  Him." 
But  let  us  translate  : 

6.  For  when  we  were  yet  weak,  Christ,  through  an 
opportunity  for  it,  died  for  the  ungodly.  7.  For  scarcely 
for  a  righteous  man  will  any  one  die ;  (for  for  the  good 
man  some  one  might,  perhaps,  dare  to  die);  8.  But  God 
enhances  His  own  love  towards  us  in  that  while  we  were 
yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us. 

"  Enhances  His  own  love."  That,  of  course,  swells  ours. 
For  if  the  conditions  are  complied  with,  that  is,  on  God's  part, 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and,  on  man's  part,  the  resultant  faith, 
God's  love  is  the  provocative  of  ours  ;  efficiently,  by  being 
"  poured  into  our  hearts  "  (v.  5),  and  instrumentally  by  being 
set  before  our  eyes,  so  that  by  ardent  "  love"  "  hope  "  may 
burn  its  very  brightest,  and  we  may  even  "exult  in  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  (v.  1 1).  "  Without  strength." 
That  is  the  common  rendering  (E.  V,),  and  it  answers  well 
enough,  but   "  weak "   is  the  literal  word  :   and  we  keep  it 


CHAPTER    V.  151 

because  of  another  passage.     "  What  the  law  could  not  do  in 
that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh  "  (8  :  3).     This  is  a  thorough 
comment.     When  we  were  left  to  the  flesh  ;    when  we  were 
like  the   devils  ;  when  we   belonged  to  that  melancholy  com- 
pany who,  as  the  apostle  marks  them,  being  ''  in  the  flesh,  can 
not  please  God  "  (8:8):  when  we  were  "  weak,''  therefore,  in 
a  way  that  precluded  any  other  relief,    *'  Christ  through  an 
opportunity:"— We    seize  here  a  chance  for  a    very  useful 
emendation.     The  devils  had   no  "^//^/-/i////'/)-."     Christ  could 
seize  none  for  them.     He  could  not  have  "  died  for  us"  but 
for  a  rare  chance  in  the  administration  of  the  heavens.     Paul 
seizes  the  same   idea  where   he  calls   Christ   the   anLoq   (what 
happened  to  be  the  required  thing,  the  thing  charged  upon  Him, 
a'lTcdofiai,     the     judicial    or    logical    cause    or    ground)    •'  for 
eternal  salvation  "  (Heb.   5  :  9).     "  Chris/,   through  an  oppor- 
tu7iity:'    made    His    advent,    and    became    the   ainoq.      And 
as  to   our  right   to  the  words,  look  at  the  vapid  character  of 
any  thing  else.     *'  ///  due  time  "  (E.  V.,  '*  season,"  Re.)  I     What 
has  that  to  do  with   this  wonderful  affection  ?     The  word  is 
Kaifjdv,    meaning    *'Just   measure."       It    is    usually    translated 
as  of  time,   for  "  opportunity  "  marks  a  time,  and  is  necessarily 
always  of  a  specific  date.     We  speak  in  English  of  an  occasion 
from   much  the  same  habit   of  thought.     But  sometimes  the 
Creek    asserts    itself.      Paul  speaks  of   "  serving   the    /ca^pof," 
meaning  evidently  that  we  are  to  obey  the  opportunity  ("  serving 
the  Lord,"  E.  V.,  is   from  a  varied  reading,  12  :  n*).     And  in 
the  Epistle  to   the  Hebrews  (11  :  15)  we  read  of  men  having 
"  an    opportunity  to    have   returned  "   (E.  V.).     There  is   no 
doubt  about  the  sense.     Paul   commands  us  to  "  seize  (our) 
opportunity   by   purchase"    (Eph.  5    :   16).      And,    in    classic 
Creek,  the  proof  would  be  still  more  plenty.     "Died."      Of 
course  not  by  crucifixion,  except  as  included  in  His  sufferings. 
He  might  have  been  beheaded,  or,  as  we  have  seen  (4  :  23-25), 
He  might  have  not  died   at  all.     The  wages  of  sin  are  fax 
darker  than  death,   except  as  death  betokens  them.     All  His 


*  And  may  probably  be  the  true  one.     See  the  comment  in  loc. 


152  ROMANS. 

humiliations  are  uttered  under  that  most  dismal  syllable  of 
rhetoric.  "  Died  for."  "  In  the  place  of  "  would  be  true,  but 
''for  "  is  broader.  "Scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  will  any- 
one die."  The  difference  between  *' a  righteous  man''  and 
"the  good  man"  are  not  usually  well  declared  (see  the 
different  commentators).  The  ''righteous  7?ia?i"  is  a  "good 
man,''  and  "righteousness,"  it  ought  to  be  kept  in  eye,  is  all 
moral  goodness  J  but  our  writer,  having  let  iiSliq  ["scarcely") 
slip  from  under  his  pen,  stops  for  an  apology,  and  hence  the 
"for,"  rather  awkv/ard  in  its  sound,  which  seems  established 
in  the  text.  "Scarcely  for  a  righteous  ?nan  will  any  one  die" 
(I  say  "  scarcely  "  not  to  rob  the  glory  of  the  Master,  "for  " 
really  "  for  the  good  man,"  for  that  sweetest  phase  of  moral 
righteousness,  "some  one  might  even  dare  to  die");  "but 
God  enhances  owlarr^ai,  (see  3:5)  His  own  love  towards 
us,"  that  is,  makes  it  stand  together  in  incomparable  com- 
pleteness, "  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died 
for  us." 

9-1 1.  Let  it  be  understood,  therefore,  that  the  utmost 
"  love  "  of  the  Almighty,  exhibited  in  this  extreme  shape,  and 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  "poured  out  in  our  hearts  "  as  its  reflexive 
influence  (v.  5),  gendering,  therefore,  a  "hope"  only  short  of 
that  which  through  "  perfect  love  casts  out  fear  "  (i  Jo.  4  :  t8), 
is  now  to  be  added  to  by  those  rational  confidences  which  these 
extreme  thoughts  reveal.  He  who  loved  me  when  I  was  a 
vile  wretch,  "  much  more  "  will  love  me  when  I  have  been 
incipiently  "  made  righteous." 

9.  Much  more,  then,  having  been  now  made  righteous 
in  His  blood,  shall  we  be  saved  by  Him  from  the  wrath. 
10.  For  if  while  we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to 
God  by  the  death  of  His  Son,  much  more,  having  been 
reconciled,  shall  we  be  saved  in  His  life.  11.  And  not  only 
so,  but  even  with  exultation  in  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  now  we  have  received  the  reconcili- 
ation. 

"  Shall."  The  full  salvation  is  future.  "  Made  righteous;  " 
only  by  that  tincture  of  betterness  which  a  slim  faith  begins. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  "in  His  blood;  "  for,  barred  of  that,  even 


CHAPTER   V.  153 

beginnings    of    righteousness  are    impossible.      We   shall   be 
saved  from  the  wrath,  first,  when  our  righteousness  shall  have 
become  complete,   and,   second,  when    our  perseverance  has 
become  certain,  for  there  is  but  one  promise,  ''  He  that  endur- 
eth    to  the  end   the  same   shall    be  saved"    (Matt.     10  :   22). 
"Saved  in  His  life."     Had  Christ  died  in   any  graver  sense, 
that  is,  had  He  met  the  fate  which   He  cried  out  against  with 
strong  clamor  and  tears  (Heb.  5:7);  that  is,  had  He  succumbed 
to  His  infinite  temptations,  we  would  have  been  lost.     And  He 
said  this  to  His  disciples.     He  warned  them  in  that  paroxysm 
under  the  olive  trees, '•  The   spirit   truly  is  willing  (that  is  my 
human    spirit),  but   the   (my)  flesh   is  weak  "   (Matt.  26  :  41). 
He  cried  out  at  their  failure,  and  seemed  to  Himself  the  more 
imperilled    for   their    desertion  :   "  What,   could   ye  not  watch 
with  me  for  one  hour  ?  "     And  then— a  fearful  figure  of  a  man 
all  clotted   with  the  blood  of  His  self-resistance — He  cries  out 
as  though  He  would  shake  at   them  the  finger  of  the    most 
earnest  warning  of  His  risk,  "  Watch  ye  and  pray,  lest  ye  your- 
selves enter  (by  the  fate   of  a  failure)  into   (the  results  of  this 
my)    temptation"    (Matt.    26:    41).      ''Saved    by   His    life;' 
therefore,  means  saved  by  His  ?wt  dying,  that  is   not   meeting 
with  that  dreadful  '' deat/i  "  (Heb.  5  :   7)  which  would  have  fol- 
lowed  if  He    had   been  beaten  by   temptation.     No   wonder 
Paul  exults  (v.   11),  and  that  he  exu//s  "through  Christ," 
and  that  he  counsels  us  to  ''  keep  possession  "  also  through  Him, 
and  that  He  does  "  all  things  through  Christ  that  strengthens 
(him);  "    adding,    as    he    presently  does    again,  that    favorite 
adverb,  ''much  rather  ;"  having  borne  the  baptism  of  Kedron, 
"  much  more  "  will  He  go  on  to  help.  "For  if,  while  we  were 
enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  His 
Son,   much   more,  having   been  reconciled,  shall  we    be 
saved  in  His  life." 

It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  add   that  the  "reconcilia- 
tion" is  in  both  directions,  of  God  to  us,  and  of  us  to  God. 

12.   The  apostle  is  to  go  more   deeply  now   into  this  ttoPJ.q 

fiaTJ^ov  or  "  much  fnore"   idea  as  a  foundatk>n  for  exulting  hope. 

12.    Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  the  sin  passed  into  the 

ivorld,  so  also  the  death  by  the  sin,  and  thus  the  death 


154  ROMANS. 

passed  through  unto  all  men  on  to  Him  at  whose  expense 
all  sinned. 

"Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  the  sin  passed  into  the 
world."  Of  course  it  did  ;  for  ''  one ?nan''  began  the  sinning. 
"So  also  the  death  by  the  sin."     Of   course  it  did  ;    for  the 

threatening  against  ''the  sin  "  was  ''the  death''  (Gen.  2  :  17). 
If  Adam  had  no  progeny,  this  much  would  have  been  fulfilled. 
The  transient  act  of  a  single  "  sin,''  which  one  might  think  of 
as  perishing  on  its  very  stem,  did  no  such  thing,  but  bred 
"  death  j  "  and  millions  of  sins  would  have  been  born  increas- 
ingly in  these  two  transgressors.  So  far  the  sentence  might 
stand  by  itself,  but  Paul  hurries  the  results.  "  Death,"  planted 
in  Adam,  "passed  through,"  and  the  sequence  was  entire  ; 
"passed  through  unto  all  men;"  all  were  affected  alike  ;  and 
then,  rounding  out  the  whole  belief,  "passed  through  unto  alt 
men  on  to  "Hxai upon  whom''  (that  is,  at  whose  charges  or 
at  whose  expense)  all  did  the  sinnijig."  "  Wherefore  ;  "  liter- 
ally "  on  account  of  this."  By  "  this  "  would  then  be  intended 
nothing  about  Adam,  for  of  our  relation  to  that  first  pair  this 
verse  is  the  first  to  speak.  The  force  of  the  illative  has  to  do 
with  this  passing  through  unto  Christ.  "On  account  of 
this"  ititrs  first  to  the  reconciliation  "  (v.  11),  and,  second, 
to  its  being  accomplished  "by  the  death  of  (the)  Son  "  (v.  10)  ; 
and  before  he  can  carve  out  for  himself  another  of  these 
exulting  expressions,  ttoAXcj  fiaT/Mv  {"  fnuch  rather  "),  he  seeks 
now  a  base  for  it  in  tracking  the  "  death  "  back  to  its  original 
seat  in  the  history  of  Adam.  He  had  said  before,  "  7?tuch  fjiore^ 
being  reconciled"  the  easier  part  will  follow.  Now  he  takes 
another  leap.  He  goes  back  to  where  death  "  passed  in," 
viz.,  to  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  his  reasoning  is  to  be,  If 
sin  is  so  terrible  an  evil  that  "  by  the  offence  of  one  the 
many  died,"  how  "  7}iuch  more"  glorious  the  grace  whereby 
millions  of  offences,  any  one  of  which  might  have  propa- 
gated sin,  were  swallowed  up  by  one  man's  obedience. 
"  Passed  into  the  world"  Eve's  sin  was  the  first  known 
on  the  planet.  "So  also."  This  is  a  translation  of  the  con- 
junction/cat ("  ^;z^  ")  ;  and  that  it  is  a  proper  one,  take  this 


CHAPTER    V.  155 

from  the  very  highest  authority.  It,  k«/,  is  also  used  "  before 
the  apodosis,  and  connecting  it  as  a  consequent  with  its 
protasis  as  its  antecedent  *  *  *  where  the  apodosis 
affirms  what  is  or  will  be  done  ///  consequence  of,  because  of,  that 
which  is  contained  in  the  protasis,  e.  g.,  and  so,  and  therefore,  for 
example  Acts  7  :  43,  '  Vea,  ye  took  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch, 
and  the  star  of  your  God  Remphan,  figures  which  ye  made  to 
worship  them  :  and  (so  that)  I  will  carry  you  away  beyond 
Babylon,'  quoted  from  Amos  5  :  27  "  (Robinson's  Lex.  ;  see 
also  Robinson  upon  i^a^tp,  and  refer  to  Math.  25  :  14  and 
2  Cor.  8  :  7.)  Here  then  is  the  much  desired  apodosis  of  this 
critical  passage.  Some  (Clericus,  Wolf)  have  imagined  that 
kqX  ovtu)(;  began  it,  ("  even  thus  "),  but  ovru  kuI  means  '*  rc'en  thus," 
and  the  whole  logical  apodosis  is  more  thoroughly  gathered  up 
if  we  gather  into  it  a// the  consequences  of  "  the  sin."  These 
were,  first,  the  death  of  Adam  ;  second,  the  death  of  all  men, 
not  even  excepting  Christ,  and,  third,  the  passing  through  to 
Christ,  for  the  purposes  of  the  "  reconciliation  "  (v.  10),  of  that 
"  death  "  (v.  6-8)  which  he  endured  for  the  redemption  of  the 
sinner.  The  order  then  was  first,  "  sin,''  that  is  Eve's  sin  ;  then 
^' death,"  \.\i2X  is  Eve's  ^^  death"  and  Adam's;  then  ''death" 
passing  through  to  '' all  men,"  that  is  sinfulness  and  all  forms 
of  "  death  ;  "  then  "  sin  "  in  all,  as  a  consequence  of  sinfulness  ; 
and  then  "  death  "  to  Christ,  a  "  death  "  deep  and  awful,  but  not 
sinful  ;  a  "  death  "  passed  over  to  our  Substitute,  "  on  whom" 
with  a  force  not  unusual  to  (iri,  or  **  at  whose  expense  "  all  did 
the  sinning.  ''  On  to  him  on  whom  "  seems  a  great  deal  to  put 
into  ef  w,  but  it  is  not  at  all  too  much  even  in  classic  literature. 
•Of  has  this  sort  of  ricochet  of  sense  very  continually.  The 
expressions  we  have  already  seen,  ''as  being  one  who  "  (3  :  30  ; 
4  :  18)  are  kindred  in  their  make.  Luke  talks  "  of  those  thi figs 
which  "  (E.  v.),  when  all  is  expressed  by  uv  (Lu.  9  :  t,6).  The 
thief  talks  "  of  those  things  which  (we  have  done)  "  Lu.  23  :  41  ; 
still  nothing  but  ^Lv.  Paul  has  the  same  expression,  uv,  "of 
those  things  which"  (E.  V.,  Rom.  15  :  18)  ;  and  again  in  Corin- 
thians, "  Did  I  make  a  gain  of  you  by  any  of  them  (wv)  whom  1 
sent  unto  you?"  (2  Cor.  12  :   17).     But  still  more  to  our  pur« 


156  ROMANS. 

pose,  he  has  this  very  exact  speech  e^w,  and  twice  in  other 
parts  of  his  epistles.  Let  me  say,  however,  first,  that  Luke  has 
it  : — "  Took  up  that  whereon  "  (cfw,  Luke  5  :  25).  Paul  has 
it  in  the  plural,  " ///  those  things  whereof — all  expressed  by 
ffolf  (6  :  21).  And  then  in  the  singular,  ^'' that  for  which 
{kcp'd))  also  I  am  apprehended  "  (E.  V.,  Phil.  3  :  12)  ;  and 
again,  "  where  in  "  (h'^ ,  or,  "  as  to  that  in  which  ")  "  ye  were 
also  careful  "  (E.  V.,  Phil.  4  :  10).  The  warrant  of  a  transla- 
tion could  hardly  be  more  established.  The  polemic  aspects 
of  this  reading  (which,  however,  are  not  doctrinal  at  all,  for  it 
is  fairly  on  the  orthodox  side)  would  carry  us  too  far.  We  can 
shorten  our  book  by  mere  positive  explication.  Other  render- 
ings give  their  reasons  ;  and  though  our  version  might  often 
be  propped  by  a  comparison  with  others,  yet  it  is  expensive  as 
to  time,  and,  perhaps,  we  should  have  clearer  views  if  each 
exegete  fenced  himself  off  chiefly  to  his  own  exposition.  The 
fixings  of  this  verse  are  legion.  The  great  thorn  that  besets 
its  explication  is  the  want  of  an  apodosis.  Our  common 
Bibles  stride  over  five  verses  to  obtain  one  ;  and  when  they 
reach  the  eighteenth  verse,  what  have  we  ?  One  little  more  in 
the  shape  of  this  literary  need  than  any  of  the  five  which  have 
thus  interrupted,  most  improbably,  Paul's  wonderful  density 
and  subtlety  of  speech.  Then  when  we  roll  off  the  pestering 
question,  and  have  our  shorn  protasis  to  ourselves,  what  can  we 
do  next?  'E§i'<i  has  had  a  century  of  meanings.  If  we  trans- 
late "  zVz  who?n,"  we  violate  the  preposition.  Paul  would  have 
said  " /;2  2e//!^;;z,"  and  not  ^^  on  whofn^  Again,  the  grammar. 
Adam  is  far  back.  Plural  nouns  would  interpose  to  defeat  the 
pronoun.  Again,  we  throw  endless  questions  into  the  theology. 
What  is  meant  by  sinning  in  Adam  ?  It  would  be  oTraf  leydfievov. 
We  die  in  him  (i  Cor.  15  :  21)  ;  but  where  do  we  ever  hear 
that  we  sin  in  him  ?  Some  think  that  we  were  actually  present, 
and,  in  the  loins  of  our  father,  ate,  ^//^^^  a  legality  of  ill-desert, 
the  baleful  sorrow.  Others  deny  this.  It  is  a  turning  point  of 
infinite  strait.  And  though  it  is  flatly  certain  about  Adam  that 
we  know  no  more  than  two  all  sufficient  realities,  first,  that  it 
is  by  nature  that  a  bad  father  should  produce  a  bad  son,  and, 


CHAPTER    I 


57 


second,  that  it  xs^just  (though  of  such  high  administrations  we 
can  argue  in  our  own  hght  literally  nothing),  yet  this  passage 
has  started  another  theory,  viz.,  that  though  it  would  be  ridicu- 
lous that  we  sinned  in  him  in  any  actual  thereness  at  the  time, 
yet  that  we  sinned  federally,  a  covenant  having  been  made 
with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself  but  for  his  children,  when 
there  is  not  a  word  of  the  covenant  in  print,  and  we  have  not 
the  slenderest  ground  of  any  such  conception  in  the  history. 
A  bad  acorn  makes  a  bad  oak.  A  fig  tree  does  not  produce 
olive-berries.  And  since  man  is  not  a  fig  tree,  there  must  be 
another  fact  in  the  heredity,  and  that  is  sufficiently  revealed, 
viz.,  that  it  \sjust  in  God,  and,  therefore,  we  may  say  necessary, 
to  let  this  law  of  the  universe  extend  to  His  sensitive  crea- 
tion. 

But  not  only  has  the  translation  "  i?i  who?n  "  created  debate, 
but  the  co/iju/ia/o/i-iendenng  of  the  words  has  been  still  more 
unsettling.  ''  For  that  "  is  the  rendering  of  our  versions  (E.  V. 
and  Re.).  Well  now,  how  ''/or  that  ^  "  ''  Death  passed  upon 
all,  for  that  all  have  sinned  "  (E.  V.).  But  why  ''  for  that  "  or 
"  because  ?  "  It  is  common  to  say,  They  die  because  they  sin. 
But  this  is  not  so.  They  die  for  Adam's  sin,  and  if  there  is 
anything  personal  to  be  considered,  we  must  turn  the  sentence 
the  other  way.  Either  they  sin  because  they  die,  or.  what  is 
more  vitally  to  be  considered,  they  are  *'  dead  in  sin  "  (Eph. 
2  :  i),  just  as  we  are  '^righteous  in  faith  "  (dative),  that  is  " />i 
the  shape  of  faith  "  (3  :  28).  In  other  words  death  and  sinful- 
ness are,  in  the  main  point  (that  is  leaving  off  the  other  evils 
of  death),  interchangeably  the  same  great  evil.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  take  the  Revision  view,  and  read  ''for  that  all 
si?med"  (aorist),  Dr.  Shedd  is  ready  to  say  that  we  were  there 
according  to  his  subjective  view  of  the  Adamic  imputation,  and 
Dr.  Hodge  to  re-open  the  debate,  and  insist  upon  the  federal 
inness  or  oneness  in  the  original  transgression.  (living  c^'tL 
an  understanding  which  brings  an  apodosis  to  the  first  clause, 
and  making  hrr't  mean  "  on,"  and  restoring  it  to  its  proper  signi- 
fication, we  draw  the  lines  back  to  where  they  cease  to  be 
polemic,  and  we  exhume  a  sense  in  which  all  Christians  are  at 


58 


ROMANS. 


one,  and  which  is  about  all  that  has  been  taught  to  us  of  our 
apostasy  in  the  Garden  of  Eden. 

Making  z-ki  mean  "  upon^'  which  is  its  straight-out  and  most 
necessary  signification,  would  be  enough  for  our  purpose,  for 
''upon''  Christ  in  the  most  literal  sense  men  have  been  loading 
down  their  guiltiness.  But  kiri  so  distinctly  means  more  (Lu. 
12  :  44;  9  :  49),  and  so  specially  means  to  a  mans  account  or 
at  his  hazard,  or,  as  we  would  say  in  trade,  at  his  charges  (Dem. 
822  :  10;  Lu.  4  :  4;  9  :  49;  Acts  2  :  38;  9  :  17,  18),  that  we  have 
not  hesitated  to  give  immediate  facility  to  the  sense  by  this 
form  of  interpretation. 

13.  For  as  far  as  there  was  law,  sin  was  in  the  world  ;  but 
sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law ;  14.  Yet  death 
reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  and  over  those  who  did  not 
sin  after  the  similitude  of  the  transgression  of  Adam,  he 
being  a  person  who  is  of  the  pattern  of  the  Coming  One. 

Barnes  says  of  all  this  (vs.  12-21):  It  "has  been  usually 
regarded  as  the  most  difficult  part  of  the  New  Testament." 
But  let  us  take  it  all  carefully  to  pieces.  Paul  has  been  helped 
amazingly  by  Jewish  quotations.  Of  enrighteousment  by  faith 
he  has  fine  support  in  the  sentence,  *'  The  righteous  by  faith 
shall  live."  So  he  has  reaped  much  from  the  Patriarch  ;  and 
much  from  the  Patriarch's  eulogy — "  His  faith  was  reckoned 
to  him  for  righteousness."  But,  wishing  to  celebrate  ''  the 
gospel,''  which  he  had  pronounced  to  be  the  subject  of  the 
Epistle  (i  :  i,  15),  and,  therefore,  to  make  much  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  "  one  man  "  for  millions,  he  is  naturally  drawn  to 
extend  his  base  over  that  other  man's  foundation,  and  to  say, 
If  '' o?ie  man  "  could  ruin  the  world,  "■much  more  "  has  another 
man  saved  it.  But  now,  by  a  singular  fatality,  there  is  precious 
little  Scripture  about  that  other  "  one  man,"  and  no  great  text 
like  that  about  the  believer  and  about  Abraham.  There  is  a 
mention  in  the  narrative  in  Genesis,  and  no  mention  again  in 
all  the  Hebrew.  The  facts  were  so  patent  that  they  required 
no  mention.  That  very  obviousness  was  the  exact  stand  for 
Paul.  It  will  be  seen  that  he  demonstrates  nothing.  But  the 
structure  of  his  speech  is  a  mere  terse  appeal  to  the  facts  that 


CHAPTER    r.  159 

were  unchallenged.  He  had  said,  ''  Death  passed  through  to 
ally  He  quotes  nothing,  for  there  is  nothing  to  quote.  And 
for  that  very  reason,  because  the  results  of  Adam's  sin  (except 
in  the  Apocrypha,  2  Esd.  3  :  21 ;  7  :  11,  12,  48;  Eccles.  9:1), 
had  not  been  thrown  into  shapes  of  their  synagogue  speech,  he 
goes  back  to  first  principles  in  the  matter,  and  makes  ready,  by 
a  skilful  word,  for  the  use  of  the  first  man  as  *'of  the  pattern 
of  the  Coming  One.'*  How  could  he  show  that  ''death  had 
passed  through  to  all  (v.  12)  ?  That  all  were  sinners  he  could 
quote,  and  had  quoted  with  more  than  usual  decision  (3  :  10, 
19).  But  how  all  came  to  be  sinners  was  another  affair,  and 
he  traces  that  in  a  chronological  way,  and  lays  it  at  the  door  of 
the  original  transgression.  "  As  far  as  there  was  law  sin  was 
in  the  world."  That  he  lays  down  at  once.  He  had  already 
taught  that  all  had  sinned  (3  :  23).  But  he  was  willing  to  go 
back,  and  make  things  more  sweeping  by  a  challenge.  He  was 
willing  to  admit  that  men  were  not  sinners  who  had  "  no  law.'* 
That  is  a  plain  truism.  And  he  mentions  it  only  to  assume  it. 
If  I  have  nothing  to  teach  me  righteousness,  I  have  nothing  to 
breed  me  ''  sinr  There  is  no  mystery  in  this.  It  is  a  plain, 
every-day  thought  which  the  apostle  had  previously  noticed 
(4:  15).  But  he  adds  to  it.  "  Sin  is  not  imputed,'*  that 
is,  can  not  be  reckoned  or  punished,  "  where  there  is  no  law." 
If  a  man  is  punished,  it  is  a  sign  he  has  both  "  law  "  and 
**  sin  ;  "  and,  thus  reasoning  backward,  he  carries  us  through 
all  the  passage.  "  Death  '*  not  only  existed,  but  it  absolutely 
**  reigned."  And  it  "  reigned''  not  only  in  common  times  with 
which  they  were  all  familiar,  but  in  times  of  less  law,  or,  in 
Oriental  exaggeration  (see  comment  (m  4:  15,  also  i  Jo.  3:  4), 
of  no  law  at  all,  such  as  those  *'  between  Adam  and  Moses;  " 
and  not  only  in  times  of  '*  no  law,''  comparatively  (just  as  our 
Saviour  speaks  of  no  sin,  Jo.  15  :  22,  and  Paul  of  not  being 
sent  to  baptize,  i  Cor.  i  :  17),  but  when  they  "  had  not  sinned 
after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,"  that  is,  as 
standing  for  a  race,  with  the  awful  heinousness  of  sinning 
away  a  world,  and  with  the  horrid  criminality  of  plunging 
into  sin  out  of  a  condition  of  light  and  righteousness.     These 


i6o  ROMANS, 

are  the  simple  reasonings  of  the  apostle  ;  "  Death  has  passed 
through  unto  all,''  because  all  show  it ;  and  that  not  in  physical 
**  death,''  but  in  a  thousand  other  symptoms.  And  as  "  sin  is  not 
i?tiputed  where  there  is  no  law,"  and  ''  death  "  can  not  be  inflicted 
except  as  a  reckoning  for  sin,  it  follows  from  the  universality 
of  pain,  that  there  is  a  universality  of  sin,  and,  therefore,  a 
universality  of  law,  and,  hence,  from  the  whole  picture  of 
the  facts,  a  need  of  tracing  the  history  to  an  original  trans- 
gressor. 

It  must  be  distinctly  marked,  however,  how  the  Bible  keeps 
diligently  in  view  sinfulness  as  the  punishment  of  sin.  Just 
as  Christ's  great  grace  is  righteousness,  that  is  holiness,  and  it 
is  sad  that  we  have  frittered  it  away  into  a  forensic  justifica- 
tion, so  Adam's  great  curse  was  sinfulness,  and  we  have 
frittered  it  away  into  "  death  "  with  a  less  radical  sense  than 
that  imputed  by  the  words  of  the  apostle,  ''the  wages  of  sin  is 
death"  that  is,  more  sinfulness,  the  undoubted  agonies  of 
wrath  being  only  the  nimbus  around  the  great  essential  sub- 
stance of  the  punishment.  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof, 
thou  shalt  die."  See  how  closely  Paul  follows  the  reality. 
"  6"/;-! "  he  couples  instantly  with  ''  death,"  and  we  find  he 
gives  no  countenance  to  any  thing  but  this  :  that  our  great 
curse  in  Adam  is  just  what  a  fig-tree  might  inherit — character. 
Paul  seems  to  think  that  enough.  I  get  from  Adam  charac- 
ter. That  is  "  death  "  in  its  very  essence.  To  feel  any  thing 
painful  I  must  have  both  law  and  sin.  "  Law  "  I  certainly 
do  have  in  my  natural  conscience,  and  *'  sin  "  all  men  show  ; 
and  "  death  "  is  nothing  more  than  "  sin,"  except  as  there  go 
with  it  temporal  and  eternal  sorrows. 

''As  far  as"  This  is  almost  the  original  sense  oi  hxpiz- 
"KKpoq  means  to  the  utmost  edge  of.  'AKpaxeip  means  to  the  end  of 
the  hand.  'kxpiQ  usually  means  "  until "  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  a  very  nat- 
ural sequence  from  the  other  meaning.  But  Xenophon  says  : 
"  As  long  as  {hxptq)  they  do  not  hunger  "  (Conv.  4  :  37).  Luke 
says  :  "  For  {iixpi)  five  days  "  (Acts.  20  :  6),  and  we  read  in  the 
Hebrews  :  While  (or  as  long  as)  it  is  called  to-day  "  (3  :  13). 
It  is  a  preposition  singularly  philosophic  in  describing  just 


CHAPTER   V.  i6i 

how  great  sin  is.  It  is  sin  just  as  far  as  it  is  against  conscious 
''  lawr 

Other  and  adverse  renderings  would  fill  a  volume  by  them- 
selves if  we  attempted  to  reply  to  them.  'I'hey  are  positively 
numberless.  In  the  throes  of  difficult  exposition  such  as 
Barnes  speaks  of,  it  is  astonishing  how  good  men  forget  them- 
selves. Like  a  woman  in  her  agony,  they  say  things  that  they 
could  not  be  forced  to  utter  in  moments  of  ease.  This,  for 
example — it  is  from  the  grand  work  edited  by  Ellicott  : 
**  Strictly  speaking,  there  could  be  no  individual  sin  till  there 
was  a  law  to  be  broken.  But  in  the  interval  between  Adam 
and  Moses,  /.  c,  before  the  institution  of  law,  death  prevailed 
over  the  world  ;  which  was  a  proof  that  there  was  sin  some- 
where. The  solution  is,  that  the  sin  in  question  was  not  the 
individual  guilt  of  individual  transgressors,  but  the  single 
transgression  of  Adam  "  {in  loco). 

Here,  really,  is  where  we  should  push,  to  force  the  necessity 
of  some  more  reasonable  rendering.  Nearly  all  the  commen- 
tators side  with  Ellicott.  The  theologizing  is  really  dreadful. 
Egypt  could  build  Cheops,  but  did  not  know  that  to  rob 
widows  was  wicked  !  Wait  till  some  other  page,  and  these 
same  men  will  be  extreme  upon  the  perdition  of  the  heathen  ! 
We  sometimes  think  passing  by  a  sentence  would  be  wise.  It 
would  ennoble  an  exegete  sometimes.  '  This  paragraph 
puzzles  me,  and  I  pass  it.'  For  surely  it  must  injure  the  unde- 
vout  when  critics  put  hand  to  every  sentence,  and  are  mani- 
festly dazed  into  a  reading  which  makes  the  whole  world  for 
twenty  centuries  ;  with  Enoch  in  it,  who  walked  with  God  ; 
with  Noah  in  it,  who  was  a  preacher  of  righteousness  ;  with 
Abel  in  it,  who  obtained  witness  that  he  was  righteous  ;  with 
Nimrod  in  it,  a  great  founder  of  empire  ;  with  Abram  in  it, 
before  the  giving  of  the  law  ;  and  with  a  world  in  it  before  the 
flood  given  up  to  wickedness  ;  yet,  in  all  that  time,  simply 
guilty  in  Adam  ;  as  Ellicott  sanctions  it,  *'  without  a  law  to  be 
broken,"  and,  therefore,  with  no  individual  guilt  of  individual 
transgressors  ;  the  flood,  of  course,  drowning  no  sinners,  but 
only  hapless  heritors  of  the  guilt  of  our  great  mother  ! 


1 62  ROMANS. 

We  base  every  thing  upon  the  fall  of  Adam,  but  that  every- 
thing is  in  the  chief  part  sinfulness,  and  sin  can  not  be  reck- 
oned for  where  there  is  no  law.  And  we  base  every  thing 
upon  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  that  every  thing  is  in  chief 
part  our  own  righteousness,  very  sinful  indeed  at  first,  but 
gradually  growing  more  righteous,  as  Augustine  represents,* 
and  which  can  not  be  realized  except  under  fresh  law  and 
under  fresh  probation.  It  is  under  these  parallels  ^'-  of  the 
one  man,''  and  ^^  the  one  7?ian,''  that  Paul  introduces  the  sentence 
that  the  first  man  "  was  after  the  pattern  (not  a  type,''  E.  V., 
simply,  or,  least  of  diW,  '' a  figure,"  Re.,  simply,  but  '■^  after 
the  pattern,"  XhdtX  is,  in  a  kindred  position),  oi  "the  Coming 
One." 

15.  But  not  as  the  offence  so  also  is  the  grace:  for  if  in 
the  offence  of  the  one  the  many  died,  much  more  did  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  in  grace  which  is  of  the  one 
man,  Jesus  Christ,  flow  over  to  the  many. 

Godet  complains  that  ''this  passage  (vs.  15-17)  has  ex- 
hausted the  sagacity  of  commentators."  The  "three  verses," 
he  adds,  "  are  among  the  most  difficult  of  the  New  Testament." 
His  account  of  other  authorities  is  curious  and  suggestive. 
*'  Morus  holds  that  in  vs.  15-19  the  apostle  merely  repeats  the 
same  thing  five  times  over  in  different  words  ;  Riickert  sup- 
poses that  Paul  himself  was  not  quite  sure  of  his  own 
thoughts  ;  (while)  Rothe  and  Meyer  find  in  these  scenes  traces 
of  the  most  profound  meditation  and  mathematical  precision. 
Notwithstanding  the  favorable  judgment  of  the  latter  it  must 
be  confessed  that  the  considerable  variety  of  expositions  seem 
still  to  justify  to  some  extent  the  complaints  of  the 
former."  (!) 

Let  us,  however,  observe  two  rules,  and  watch  their  efficiency. 
The  one  is,  not  to  imagine  that  the  apostle  is  designing  to  say 
more  than  he  actually  says.  We  are  constantly  confused  by 
mixing  the   on  with  the   &l6tl.      Paul  is  simply  saying  that  if 

*"  Justification  here  is  imperfect  in  us"  (Vol.  v.  p.  867).  "  When  our 
hope  shall  be  completed,  then  also  our  justification  shall  be  completed  " 
(Vol  V.  p.  790) . 


CJIAJ'TER   V.  163 

"  tne  offence  "  ruined  us,*  "  much  more  "  will  "  the  grace  *' 
save  us.  Is  not  that  true  ?  And  if  you  answer,  yes  ;  but 
before  we  can  see  that  it  is,  we  must  see  the  reason  ;  that 
brings  us  to  our  second  point,  that  we  daze  ourselves  by 
imagining  one  reason.  Paul  could  give  many  reasons,  too 
many  to  put  into  the  verse.  And,  therefore,  we  must  expound 
in  that  way.  "  But  fiot  as  the  offence^  so  also  is  the  grace ^  for  " — 
This  ''for'  is  the  for  of  statement,  not  of  explanation. 
"  The  offetue  "  differs  from  "  the  grace  "  in  this,  not  because  of 
this  ;  and  the  respect  or  modus  of  the  difference  is  simply 
thus,  that  if  the  one  damns,  *'  ///uch  more  "  may  the  other  save. 
Now  the  real  fact  is  that  the  reasons  are  endless,  and  the  mul- 
tiplicity of  the  list  is  partly  that  which  has  confused  our  think- 
ing. Paul,  let  it  be  remembered,  is  inflating  our  hopes  (v.  5) 
with  all  sorts  of  joy  and  boasting  (vs.  2,  3)  in  the  Gospel. 
For  this  cause  he  has  gone  back  to  our  apostasy,  and,  clear- 
ing up  in  a  sentence  or  two  our  ruin,  he  wishes  to  show  how 
much  more  triumphant  ''grace  "  is  m  our  escape,  than  sin  ever 
was  in  effecting  our  downfall.  That  then  is  our  second  pomt, 
that  the  reasons  are  many,  and  Paul  did  not  attempt  to  put 
them  in  a  list.  In  the  first  place,  grace  is  the  more  welcome 
principle.  God  loves  it  the  best,  and  will  be  sure,  if  it  be  safe, 
to  prefer  it.  "  He  that  spared  not  His  own  Son,  how  shall 
He  not  with  Him  freely  give  us  all  things  ?"  (8:  32).  Paul  has 
been  insisting  upon  this  in  the  chapter  previous  (vs.  15-17). 
Again,  " ^T^zr^  "  actually  wins.  In  the  experience  of  all  the 
saints  ruin  attacks  all,  and  "grace  "  comes  in  and  conquers  it. 
It  has  the  last  hand  ;  and  if  we  would  listen  to  its  voice,  it 
would  save  every  one  of  us.  Once  more,  it  overflows.  This 
is  the  respect  that  is  most  suggested.  That  word  which  Paul 
here  only  for  the  second  time  employs  (see  3:  7)  he  seems  to 
enjoy  heartily  hereafter.  And  what  can  it  mean  ?  However 
Christ  was  implicated,  undoubtedly  he  luas  implicated  in  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world.     We  believe  that  he  was  implicated  person- 


*  We  must  observe  the  *'  dative  of  material."    *'  The  offence  of  the  one'* 
was  not  merely  the  instrument,  but  the  very    *'  material  "  of  our  death.     We 
not  "/^/"(E.V.&Re.). 


1 64  ROMANS. 

naily  in  Adam,  and,  as  Peter  expresses  it  that  "  He  was  a  dead 
man  (unless  *  saved  ',  Zech.  9:  9)  according  to  the  flesh  "  (i  Pet. 
3:18).  But  all  agree  that  He  needed  '■^  grace''  (Ps.  45:  2;  Jo.i:i4) 
and  if  He  needed  *^ grace''  in  His  human  nature,  it  must  over- 
flow beyond  Himself  if  any  ^' grace  "  is  to  reach  the  world. 
This  over/lowing  thing  is  *'  the  gift  in  grace  which  is  of  the  one 
man  Jesus  Christ."  But  now,  not  only,  as  we  have  stated,  must  it 
overflow  beyond  Christ,  but  it  must  overflowhtyond  all  the  uses 
of  the  world.  The  primal  curse  lighted — every  ounce  of  it  ;  but 
the  final  gvdiCt  flowed  o\tr  and  to  spare.  Bad  men  feel  every 
atom  of  the  blight,  but  good  men  simply  bathe  in  an  overflow. 
The  ocean  of  ^' grace  "  would  not  cease  to  "  abound"  (E.  V.)  if 
all  had  been  wise,  and  the  whole  world  were  steeped  in  its 
glorious  baptism. 

We  discard  '' free  gift"  (Y..Y.  &  Re.),  which  is  a  good 
enough  word  for  x^P^<^H-o.,  ^^^  aptly  translates  it,  in  order  to 
keep  near  to  x^pi-^  {^^  grace  ").  ;t;dp<(T//a  is  "  the  grace  "  bestowed, 
while  ;^;dpic  is  the  principle  of  "grace."  The  two  words  ought 
to  be  translated  alike  in  the  same  sentence. 

But  now  more  specifically  : 

16.  And  not  as  by  one  that  sinned,  the  gift ;  for  the  judg- 
ment was  from  one  to  condemnation,  but  the  grace  was 
from  many  offences  to  a  making  righteous. 

"Gift;'*  not  xapLOfia  in  this  instance,  but  duprifia,  the  simple 
word  for  ''gift."  xdpca/ua  occurs  below,  obviously  with 
intended  difference,  and  we  translate  it  "  grace."  On  the 
contrary,  "  from  one  to  condemnation  "  and  "  from  many 
ofifences  to  a  making  righteous,"  employ  the  same  preposi- 
tion, and  the  E.  V.  deserts  the  common  ek,  and  alternates  it  as 
*'  by  "  a.nd  "  of  ."  Obviously  the  e/c  should  be  retained.  And 
though  the  idea  modifies  itself  as  between  the  one  clause  and 
the  other,  yet  the  very  reaching  for  the  connecting  link  clarifies 
the  passage.  Sin  in  each  case  was  the  occasion.  In  the  one 
case  it  bred  curse,  and  in  the  other  "grace  ;  "  in  the  one  case 
by  the  law  of  the  empire  which  bred  "  death"  and,  in  the  other, 
by  the  law  of  the  same  empire,  which  gave  life  if  the  justice  of 
Heaven  could  be  satisfied  in  our  salvation.     Now,  the  whole 


CHAPTER   V.  165 

object  of  the  passage  is — another  "  much  more  "  exultation.  For 
if  one  offence  was  so  stingingly  complete  as  to  work  mischief  to 
millions  of  a  race,  how  gloriously  abounding  must  that  ''grace  " 
be  that  can  take  a  million  of  Adams,  with  millions  and  millions 
of  trespasses,  and  counterwork  at  this  late  date  what  has  been 
seating  itself  by  increase  for  thousands  of  years.  How  thor- 
oughly this  illustrates  the  text  (v.  20),  "  Where  sin  grew 
greater,  grace  flowed  over  in  greatness."  "To  a  making 
righteous."  This  is  the  word  already  remarked  upon  (i  :  32  ; 
2  :  26).  It  is  the  noun  from  6LKaL6u,  to  inake  righteous,  which 
means,  according  to  Greek  structure,  an  instance  of  6iKaL6u,  that 
is  ''  a  making  righteous^  Protestant  expositors,  of  course,  say 
''justification  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  yet  it  cannot  be  translated  so  in 
most  cases,  (Lu.  1:6;  Heb.  9  :  i,  10  ;  Rev.  15  :  4),  and  even 
that  Latin  word  \.o  justify^  by  nature  means  to  make  righteous. 
As  "  one  man  "  makes  us  sinful,  the  Other  Man  makes  us  right- 
eous. Of  course  the  significance  is  complete,  and,  for  the 
point  greatly  insisted  upon  (Alford,  Meyer,  Fritz),  that  it 
stands  opposed  here  to  "condemnation,"  that  proves  too  much. 
Sanctification  is  opposed  to"  condemnation"  (Gen.  4:7;  Heb. 
10  :  10-14  ;  13  •  12)  ;  and  so  is  cleansing  (Lev.  14  :  18,  29  ; 
Job  II  :  15  ;  I  John  i  :  7,  9)  ;  and  so  is  any  other  fruit  of  the 
Spirit  (i  Jo.  4  :  18).  Such  reasonings  should  not  be  resorted 
to.  In  many  a  large  theology  the  very  same  covers  of  a  book 
enclose  the  same  author,  fencing  by  the  same  method,  in  flat 
opposite  direction  in  the  use  of  kindred  passages.  If  one  sin 
debauched  our  race  hereditarily,  how  much  more  grand  "  the 
grace,"  when  the  poison  has  spread  into  myriads  of  sinners, 
that  can  get  hold  of  all  that  will  obey  (yes,  and  get  hold  of 
"  many  "  and  make  them  obey),  and  make  them  righteous  in 
spite  of  their  iniquity  ! 

17.  "  For."  Now  the  apostle  will  sum  the  previous  verses 
(15,  16)  together  : 

17.  For  if  in  the  offence  of  the  one  death  reigned  by  the 
one,  much  more  shall  they  who  receive  the  overflow  of 
the  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  the  righteousness,  reign  in  life 
by  the  one  Jesus  Christ. 


1 66  ROMANS. 

The  only  advance  in  this  verse,  as  it  gathers  the  last  two  into 
one,  is  in  its  tone  and  in  its  fuller  sentiment  of  boastfulness. 
What  in  the  fifteenth  verse  is  dying,  swells  out  in  this  seven- 
teenth verse  into  a  wilder  triumph,  for  Paul  calls  it  the  reign 
of  death.  What  in  the  fifteenth  verse  was  in  the  past,  advances 
now  into  all  the  glory  of  the  future.  And  what  before  was  our 
poor  souls  reaching  the  overflow  of  grace  and  being  saved  by 
it,  is  now  the  "  reign  "  of  grace,  when  it  shall  take  entire  pos- 
session, and,  what  is  more,  the  "  reign  "  of  "  life,"  and,  what 
is  more  still,  of  that  "  /i/e  "  of  which  he  has  already  spoken — 
\\\2i\.  e}i7'ighteousment  which  constitutes  life  (i  :  17),  that  living 
ivhich  consists  in  being  7'ighteous  (8  :  6),  or,  to  go  no  further  than 
this  text,  that  receiving  of  "  the  overflow  of  the  grace  and  of 
the  gift  of  the  righteousness  "  which  shall  constitute  a  reign 
in  the  shape  of  glorious  *'  life  through  the  one  man  Jesus 
Christ."  We  speak  with  more  emphasis  of  this  subjective 
sense  because  Iv  C^/;  (''  in  life ")  lies  ambiguously  between 
receiving  and  reigning.  Like  many  another  sentence,  it  is  to  be 
considered  as  making  no  difference  whether  we  read  receiving 
in  the  shape  of  life,  or  reigning  in  the  shape  of  life.  We  have  a 
right  to  either,  and,  therefore,  to  both.  No  mortal  can  choose 
Evypdfiuart. ;  just  as  it  makes  not  the  slightest  difference  whether 
we  say  (i  :  17)  "  The  righteous  shall  live  by  faith,"  or 
"  Those  righteous  by  faith  shall  live."  In  the  language  of  the 
Spirit  those  are  Providential  forms  ;  and  that  is  a  stone  of  Sisy- 
phus that  men  are  heaving,  when  opposite  creeds  attempt  to 
wrestle  with  but  half-denied  and,  perhaps,  wholly  meant 
ambiguousnesses  (i  :  3,  6  ;  5  :  5  ;  16  :  2). 

18.  Therefore  then  as  by  one  offence  there  came  that  for 
all  men  which  was  for  condemnation,  so  also  by  one  right- 
eous-making there  came  that  to  all  men  which  was  for 
enrighteousment  of  life. 

Paul  gathers  himself  back,  now,  for  a  general  conclusion. 
Every  time  he  asserts  the  parallel,  he  brightens  it  by  some 
new  feature  of  its  truth.  "  Therefore  then;"  that  is,  gather- 
ing all  these  lights  together.  "  By  one  ofiTence."  We  have 
been  accustomed  to  the  reading  "  by  the  offence  of  one  "  (E.  V.), 


CHAPTER   V.  167 

and  might  set  it  down  as  a  harmless  ambiguity  (see  last  verse). 
The  thing  is  repeated,  '*  By  the  righUousness  of  one " 
(E.  v.).  We  would  translate  it,  '*  Ify  making  one  righteous^* 
and  our  meaning  would  be  that  ''by  one  enrig/tteous?nent," 
that  is,  hy '' the  righteous  making''  of  Christ,  He  was  lifted 
out  of  the  grave  of  death  (i  Pet.  i  :  3),  and  was  able  to 
impute  His  sufferings  to  His  people.  It  will  be  seen 
that  ''by  one  enrighteousment''  or  "by  the  enrighteousment 
of  one,''  makes  not  the  smallest  difference  in  the  sense. 
We  choose  **  by  one  offence  "  rather  than  "  by  the  offence  of  one,'* 
because,  simply  in  the  grammar,  we  are  in  doubt  whether  there 
is  any  ambiguity  at  all.  An  adjective  with  a  noun,  if  they  be 
in  the  same  case,  have  probably  the  chiefest  right  to  be  under- 
stood together.  What  rule  could  there  be  for  separating 
them  ?  Grammar,  like  electricity,  takes  the  shortest  cuts,  and 
though  strong  reasons  in  the  sense  might  justify  a  divorce, 
yet  here  the  reasons  are  the  same.  Paul  is  wending  towards 
his  end,  and,  therefore,  the  terseness  of  ''one  enrighteousment,'' 
that  is,  one  Adam  made  righteous  to  balance  one  Adam  become 
a  sinner,  is  just  that  neat  phrase  which  Paul,  in  his  magic  of 
speech,  would  be  very  apt  to  bring  into  his  reasoning. 
"  There  came  that."  King  James  fills  this  gap  from  the  six- 
teenth verse,  and  reads,  "judgment  came  "  in  one  clause,  and 
"  the  free  gift  came."  But  these  large  italics  are  a  sort  of 
reflection  upon  Paul.  In  many  such  cases  a  more  rightful 
and  idiomatic  provision  was  intended.  Paul  delights  in  what 
every  body  must  see  and  yield  to  ;  and,  therefore,  making  his 
craft  as  sharp  as  he  can  upon  the  water,  he  utters  that  which 
every  body  must  concede,  namely,  that  there  was  something  in 
the  one  offence  that  was  for  condemnation,  and  that  such  was 
the  something  in  the  one  enrighteousment.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
a  capital  rule,  as  we  have  seen  already  (see  3  :  9),  not  to  sup- 
ply italics,  even  when,  with  a  still  greater  number  of  words, 
we  can  keep  within  the  lawful  meaning  of  what  is  written. 
"  Righteous  making."  King  James  has  it  "righteousness:* 
The  Revisers,  driven  by  the  Greek,  give  us  "  act  of  righteous- 
ness:*    Ex  necessitate  theologian  beyond  a  question.     ^iKaiufia,  it 


1 68  ROMANS. 

is  safe  to  say,  never  means  "  righteousness  ;  "  and  though  there 
may  be  lexicons  that  say  that  it  does,  yet  they  are  Protestant 
lexicons,  not  classical.  And  yet  *'  righteous  act,'  except  in  the 
narrowest  significance,  is  still  more  unmanageable.  A  sinful 
act  ruined  us,  but  what  '^  righteous  act "  ever  saved  us  ?  What 
exactly  do  the  Revisers  mean  ?  If  they  mean  some  act  of 
God,  that  would  depart  entirely  from  our  parallel.  And  if 
they  mean  some  act  of  "//z^^;?(f,"  prythee  what  act?  How 
much  more  satisfactory  the  sense  if  we  can  get  back  to  the 
usual  meaning  of  this  form  derived  from  ow  ?  Here  were 
^^  one  7nan  "  and  "  one  man.''  One  of  these  men  sinned,  and  by 
the  confession  of  almost  every  Christian  ''  tJiere  came  that  for 
all  men  which  was  for  condemnation."  The  other  man  be- 
longed to  this  "  all  men^'  and  would  have  come  into  this 
*'  condemnation  "  but  for  grace  and  power  of  His  incarnate 
Godhead.  As  it  was,  He  was  "  infirm  "  and  desperate  in  His 
"  temptations,"  and  this,  not  by  any  theory  of  ours,  but  by  the 
express  words  of  accepted  revelation.  He  is  not  so  now,  but 
has  been  "  made  perfect,"  and  it  was  in  ''  being  made  perfect  " 
that  He  became  the  alnog,  that  is  the  required  ground  of 
eternal  life  to  all  them  that  obey  Him  "  (Heb.  5  :  9).  What 
is  this  perfectness?  He  calls  it  being  sanctified  (Jo.  17  :  19). 
It  is  called  learning  obedience.  (Heb.  5:8).  He  is  spoken  of 
as  "  begotten  from  the  dead^''  and,  constantly,  as  "  raised  up  " 
(8  :  11).  And  we  have  the  most  glaring  evidence  that  des- 
perate moral  temptation  was  the  secret  of  His  suffering,  and 
the  battle  that  He  fought  for  our  soul's  deliverance.  Now,  no 
mortal  imagines  that  His  winning  was  human.  He  was  "  7nade 
righteous,''  and  that  by  the  Deity,  one  within  Him.  He  never 
sinned.  He  was  spotless  from  the  very  beginning.  But  He 
was  weaker  (Jo.  17  :  19)  in  the  beginning  than  at  the  end  ; 
and  the  change  between,  is  what  is  called*'  being  jnade perfect." 
He  was  eminently  "  7?iade  righteous ;  "  for  the  Most  High, 
who  overshadowed  Mary,  would  have  left  Him  to  be  sinful  if 
He  had  not  7nade  Him  to  be  righteous.  And  this  enrighteous- 
ment  continued.  With  the  Almighty  it  was  a  stinted  holding  up. 
With  the  man  it  was  an  awful  struggle.     With  us  it  was  our 


CHAPTER   V.  169 

great  salvation.  And  as  by  one  offence  we  all  were  damned, 
by  this  ^'- one  enrighteousmcnt'"  X.\\g.x^  came  that  to  us  which 
might  be  for  our  own  "  enrighteousment  of  Ufe." 

Not  much  remains  to  be  explained.  ^LKmuaa  means  the  thing 
or  act  or  subjective  occurrence  that  makes  righteous.  AiKaiuaig 
means  the  act  of  making  righteous.  A  nice  sense  will  appreci- 
ate the  difference.  The  former,  in  the  Old  Testament,  is 
most  frequently  translated  ''  statute,"  because  a  statute  makes 
right  either  by  being  obeyed  or  by  bringing  punishment. 
AtKaiuaig  is  rarely  employed  (in  the  New  Testament  only  twice, 
4  '•  25  ;  5  :  18).  We  infer  not  the  smallest  difficulty  in  the 
present  text.  If  we  may  coin  the  word  ''  enrighteous/nent," 
which  explains  itself,  the  meaning  is,  that  as  by  one  sin  there 
resulted  to  many  condemnation,  so  by  one  enrighteousment 
(not  quite  so  narrow  as  the  sin,  because  it  was  wrought  out  in 
many  acts,  and  lasted  for  thirty  years)  many  were  made 
righteous. 

"  A//."  There  should  be  no  danger  of  Universalism  in  this 
word,  even  if  Paul  had  not  said  what  he  had  about  faith 
(4  '■  5»  9)-  The  terseness  comes  ni  as  guard.  He  does 
not  say  that  all  men  were  made  righteous,  but  *'  ther^ 
4:anie  that  to  all  men  which  was  for  enrighteousment  of  life." 
''Life"  occurs  here  as  elsewhere  (Jo.  5:  29).  It  is  the 
genitive  esscnticc.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  is  that  "  as 
by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  "  that  sort  of  resurrec- 
tion in  which  the  "  life  "  is,  in  its  chief  substance,  righteousness. 

19.  For  as  by  the  disobedience  of  the  one  man  the  many 
-were  made  sinners,  so  also  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  the 
many  shall  be  made  righteous. 

This  seems  to  require  no  notice.  It  is  all  that  has  gone  before, 
clarified  into  the  sense  we  have  been  distilling.  Its  beauty  is 
that  it  is  more  express.  The  last  clause  projects  us  into  the 
future.  We  are  really  not  righteous  here,  but  "  by  the  obedi- 
ence of  the  one  many  shall  be  made  righteous."  It  is 
only  in  this  way  that  the  truth  can  be  fmal.  "By  the  diso- 
bedience of  the  one"  we  were  "  made  "  (E.  V.  and  Re.),  not 
reckoned  to  be,  but   actually  constituted  sinners,  so,  of  course,  if 


I70  ROMANS. 

we  take  the  thing  in  its  most  rightful  argumentation,  "  by  the 
obedience  of  the  one  the  many  shall  be  made  (that  is  constituted') 
righteous.'' 

20.  But,  side  by  side,  law  came  in  so  that  the  oflfence  grew 
more  and  more ;  but  where  the  sin  grew  more,  the  grace 
overflowed  the  further,  21.  So  that  as  the  sin  reigned  in 
the  death,  so  also  the  grace  would  reign  through  righteous- 
ness unto  eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

Paul  does  not  teach  us  that  men  sinned  without  *'law,"  any 
more  than  they  were  righteous  without  law.  The  presence  of 
law  was  necessary  to  both  sin  and  righteousness.  Neverthe- 
less sin  and  law  could  be  looked  at  apart,  and  that  in  a  very 
essential  way.  A  man  would  be  a  sinner  if  he  came  out  of 
the  loins  of  Adam,  and  yet  he  could  not  be  a  sinner  without 
conscience  and  a  law.  The  verb,  therefore,  is  a  very  striking^ 
one:  '' entered  aIo?ig,"  or:  "side  by  side."  Nothing  could  be 
more  real.  The  very  same  man  we  get  our  sin  from,  we  get 
our  conscience  from.  Our  moral  nature  comes  down  to  us  in 
our  descent  from  Adam.  It  woujd  not  be  hard  to  state  the 
two  facts  together.  An  imperfect  conscience,  that  is  an  imper- 
fect sense  of  law  in  its  inner  principles,  is  itself  our  sinfulness  ; 
so  getting  an  imperfect  conscience  from  Adam  unites  the  two 
facts  of  sin  and  law.  Nevertheless  law  enters  endlessly  after- 
ward. Sinai  added  to  it.  And  each  lesson  in  our  duties  is  a 
new  entrance  of  law.  Now  the  law  enters,  not  in  order  ^^that'*^ 
(E.  V.  and  Re.).  This  iva  is  endlessly  misused.  It  is  the 
expression  of  result  (Gal.  5  :  17).  We  are  to  keep  clear  of 
the  other  idea.  God  never  sent  the  law  in  order  to  damn  us. 
Paul  is  going  deep  into  his  facts  and  teaching  us  the  nature 
of  our  ruin.  The  law  came  in  along  side  {TrapeicTjldev)  of  our 
descent  from  Adam,  and  each  increase  of  law  increased  our 
sinfulness.  In  fact,  we  could  have  no  sin  without  some  law, 
and  the  law  comes  further  in  with  the  result  of  adding  to  our 
iniquity.  And  now  with  this  fresh  start  from  our  misery  in  the 
Fall,  Paul  makes  corresponding  boast  of  the  overflow  of  the 
gospel.  "  But  side  by  side  law  came  in  so  that  the  offence 
grew  more  and  more  ;  but  where  the  sin  grew  more  the 


CHAPTER   VI.  171 

grace  overflowed  the  further.'*  These  are  not  the  same 
words.  "  Grew  more  "  is  from  the  word  t^Vxiuv  (more),  wheieas 
'^  overjimved  the  further''  is  a  term  of  the  sea,  and  means 
hyper  (Tcerflcnving,  or,  as  we  would  turn  it  into  Latin,  super- 
abounding.  It  is  well  to  hold  different  words  to  their  distinc- 
tiveness. Grace  surges  over  any  mountain,  even  of  the  most 
intelligible  and  law-defying  increase  of  sin.  "  So  that  as  the 
sin  reigned  in  the  death,"  still  the  idea  of  the  very  nature 
and  subjective  character  of  the  reign,  "so  also  the  grace 
would  reign."  *'  Would,'' vioX.  ''might"  E.  V.).  He  is  still 
speaking  of  the  result  (see  4  :  18),  for  the  two  clauses  should 
balance  each  other.  **  Through  righteousness."  That  ends 
the  chapter.  That  fills  this  epistle.  That  is  the  key-thought 
of  all  these  sentences  together.  Faith  is  the  seed-germ  of 
our  glory.  We  are  made  righteous  by  our  faith.  Not  that  it 
is  so  very  righteous,  but  that  it  is  the  dawning  of  a  new  moral 
nature.  It  is  the  richest  act  of  human  obedience.  No  won- 
der that  it  was  reckoned  for  righteousness  ;  and  no  wonder 
that  Paul,  in  these  grand  comparisons,  when  he  came  to  speak 
of  its  results,  should  speak  of  it  as  a  "  reign,"  and  as  a 
"  reign  "  of  ''grace"  and  as  a  "  reign  "  of  "grace  "  "  through 
righteousness  ;"  that  is,  the  very  substance  of  the  "grace" 
being  that  "  righteousness  "  which  is  itself  "  eternal  life  by- 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

1.  What  shall  we  say  then?  May  we  continue  in  sin, 
and  the  grace  be  the  greater  ?  By  no  means.  As  men  who 
died  to  sin,  how  shall  w©  yet  live  therein  ? 

"Then."  The  illative  idea  here  is,  that  inasmuch  as 
"where  sin  grew  to  be  more,  grace  did  oi'erflow  the  further 
(5  :  20),  the  query  might  be  worth  answering:  "  May  we 
continue  in  sin,  and  the  grace  be  the  greater?  " 

There  are  four  of  these  queries,  and   they  entirely  engross 


172  ROMANS. 

this  and  the  next  chapter.  It  will  brighten  our  track  if  we 
recite  them  at  once.  This  first  ends  with  the  idea,  "  Ye  are 
not  under  law  but  under  grace''  (6:  14).  The  second  takes 
that  point  up.  '*  What  then  ?  May  we  sin  because  we  are 
not  under  law  but  under  grace  .?  "  (v.  15).  A  reply  to  this, 
sweeping  on  through  the  rest  of  this  chapter  and  through 
six  verses  of  the  seventh,  ends  with  the  expression, 
*'  We  have  been  brought  to  ?iothing  as  to  the  law,  having 
died  to  that  in  which  we  were  held.''  This  breeds  very 
naturally  the  third  query:  "  What  shall  we  say  then?  Is  the 
law  sin  V  In  treating  this  he  utters  the  third  provocative, 
and  is  ready  for  the  fourth  question.  The  law  is  not  sin,  he 
argues  ;  nevertheless  ^^  I  had  been  alive''  (that  means  I  would 
have  quitted  sin)  '-^  at afiy  time"  but  for  the  law  (7  :  9).  Sin, 
taking  occasion  by  the  commandment,  deceived  me  and  by 
it  slew  me,  yet  "  the  command?ne?tt  is  holy  and  righteous  and 
good."  That,  of  course,  leaves  one  more  query  to  be  listened 
to  :  "  Did  then  that  which  is  good  become  death  unto  7ne  ?  " 
(7:  13).  One-eighth  of  the  epistle,  therefore  (chaps,  vi.  and 
vii.)  is  occupied  with  these  four  successively  self-suggested 
interrogations. 

"  May  we  continue  ?  "  Authority,  as  among  the  various 
readings,  lies  with  the  subjunctive.  The  contingency  ex- 
pressed by  that  mood  may  be  of  any  nature,  and  "  f7iay"  can^  or 
shall  may  be  supplied.  Either  would  do  in  the  present  instance  ; 
but  ^*  7nay "  is  perhaps  the  best.  If  "  where  sin  abounded 
grace  did  much  fnore  abound  {Y,.  Y .,  ^  :  20),  may  we"  avail  of 
such  an  abounding,  and  sin  the  more,  to  increase  the  overflow 
of  the  graciousness.  Paul  replies, — not  that  this  would  be 
shameful,  and  not  that  this  would  be  unlikely,  and  not  that  this 
would  be  an  enterprise  in  which  we  ought  not  as  Christians  to 
engage.  All  that  would  be  true  but  weak.  The  apostle's 
position  is  that  the  thing  would  be  impossible.  "  Maywecon- 
ti?iuein  sin  "  with  a  certain  result  ?  It  is  idle  for  Winer  to  say 
that  iva  always  means  intention.  Paul  is  full  of  the  opposite  in 
this  very  epistle  (4  :   18  ;  6  :  6  ;  8  :  4).    And  how  is  it  in  the 


CHAPTER   VI.  173 

epistle  to  the  Galatians  ?  "  So  that  (im)  ye  cannot  do  the 
things  that  ye  would  "  (Gal.  5  :  17).  Paul's  argument,  there- 
fore, is.  May  we  do  a  certain  thing  with  a  certain  result  ?  And 
he  replies  on  the  spot,  not  that  we  ought  not,  but  that  we  can- 
not ;  and  his  single  reason  is,  "  As  men  who  died  to  siiij  how 
shall  we  yet  live  therein  ?  ' ' 

''As  men  who."  This  is  but  giving  the  proper  force  to 
olr^vff.  ''■  Died  to  sin.''  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  ni  this 
whole  verse  has  much  light  shed  upon  it  by  the  surrounding 
passages.  The  verb  is  in  the  aorist,  and  the  noun  is  in  the 
dative  case.  The  verb  has  nothing  to  relieve  it  from  the  idea 
that  the  persons  intended  '^  died''  (aorist)  on  a  certain  occa- 
sion ;  and  the  noun  is  in  such  a  form  (dative)  as  might  mean, 
in  common  instances,  the  substance  or  essence  of  the  death. 
Therefore  a  few  (but  a  very  few  indeed)  have  translated  the 
language,  "  Died  in  sin."  *'  How  shall  we  who  died  in  sin  live 
any  longer  therein  ?  "  That  glaringly  would  be  absurd.  Still 
fewer  read,  "  died  for  sin"  and  fancy  we  did  so  in  the  person 
of  Christ ;  but  the  mischief  there  is  that  Paul's  demonstrative 
appeal  would  be  lost.  Those  forensically  safe  might  be  just 
the  persons  to  abuse  their  rescue.  It  is  not  difficult  to  centre 
upon  one  generally  accepted  sense.  Nor  need  we  quite  reject 
the  dative  oi essence  or  material  (Jelf,  Gram.  §.  610).  The  very 
thing  that  "  ^/>^/ "  is  ''sin."  Recollect  sin  is  a  part  of  our 
moral  nature.  We  may  continue  to  live  in  taste,  and  live  only 
the  more  keenly  in  mind  or  knowledge.  What  the  apostle  says 
we  died  ''  to  "  or  "  as  to  "  is  that  intimate  thing  within  us,  our 
sinfulness.  Now  this  agrees  with  all  the  language  of  the 
apostle.  A  little  further  on  we  read  that  Christ  "  died  to  sin  " 
(v.  10),  and  that  is  cleaner  cut  in  mental  contemplation  than 
our  dying.  Christ  died  utterly.  He  never  sinned.  But  He 
was  tempted  shockingly.  Sin  for  a  third  of  a  century  was  His 
desperate  torment,  and  He  writhed  under  it  as  the  essence  of 
His  sacrifice.  He  was  *'  made  sin  for  us  "  in  ways  which  show 
why  ''sin"  was  written  instead  of  "sin  offering."  He  was 
brought  close  to  sin,  as  much  as  mortal  could  be  without  com- 


174 


ROMANS. 


mitting  it  ;  and,  to  stir  the  fires,  God  deserted  Him  often,  and, 
bereft  of  His  Godhead  in  such  a  measure  as  to  make  His 
temptation  exquisite,  it  is  perhaps  this  same  apostle  who  paints 
Him  as  in  "  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  Him  who  was  able  to 
save  Him  from  death"  (Heb.  5  :  7).  So  that  we  are  at  no  loss 
to  know  when  He  "  died  to  sin  "  (v.  10).  But  we,  alas  !  like 
our  righteousness  (Is.  64  :  6),  and  like  our  holiness  (Acts  3  : 
12),  and  like  our  cleanness  (Jo.  15  :  3),  had  but  a  meagre 
dying.  Yet  we  "  died  j"  and  we '^  died  once,"  giving  the  full 
force  to  the  aorist  ;  and  that  we  are  saying  so  with  reason 
comes  out  with  more  force  in  the  following  chapter.  There 
we  are  said  to  be  "  dead  to  the  law''  (E.  V.,  7  :  4).  And  the 
death  happened  on  a  certain  occasion  ;  for  the  verb  is  in  the 
aorist  ;  and  it  happened  to  a  part  (so  to  speak)  of  ourselves, 
for  the  noun  is  in  the  dative.  It  happened  to  "  the  law''  Law 
in  a  corresponding  sense  is  as  near  to  us  as  ^'  sin.'*  I  had  not 
known  "  sin  "  but  for  ''  the  law."  I  could  not  do  "  sin  "  but  for 
"  the  law  ;  "  and  that  in  the  shape  of  conscience  constitutional 
within  us. 

It  may  be  well  to  remark  that  Paul  is  chary  of  the  speech 
that  the  law  is  dead.  He  does  not  hesitate  in  the  speech  that 
sin  is  dead.  But  when  it  comes  to  the  law  he  remembers  that 
it  does  any  thing  else  but  die  even  in  the  cross  of  the  Redeemer. 
He  delights  in  the  expression  that  we  die,  that  is  to  the  law  in 
its  curse.  And  that  moulds  his  handliiTg  of  the  incoming 
metaphor  (7  :  12).  Let  us  anticipate  a  little.  In  the  English, 
"  man  "  in  the  first  verse  (7:1)  and  "  man  "  in  the  other  verses 
seem  the  same.  But  in  the  Greek  the  women  maybe  included 
under  the  word  avdpuTrov  in  the  first  of  the  passage.  Let  us 
avoid  "  man  "  (E.  V.),  therefore.  "  Or  are  ye  ignorant,  brethren^ 
for  I  speak  to  persons  knowing  law,  that  the  law  rules  its  human 
subject  as  long  as  he  lives."  Now,  the  last  word  in  this  sentence 
is  perhaps  designedly  ambiguous.  Is  it  "  he  lives  "  or  "  it  lives." 
There  are  scholars  who  say  "  /'/  "  (Origen,^  Erasmus,  Bengel). 
If  we  say  "  //"  it  might  seem  to  answer  better,  for  Paul  seems 
to  be  aimmg  at  the  doctrine  that  the  law  is  dead.  But  if  we 
say  ^^ he"  it  is  more  respectful  to  the   law,  for  the  law  really 


CHAPTER    VI.  175 

never  dies,  and  Paul  seems  to  shape  his  metaphor  (vs.  2-4)  so 
as  to  allow  it  to  be  said  that  the  woman  is  "  discharged''  (Re.), 
or  is  ''  brought  to  nothing,''  or  ''becomes  dead"  to  the  law  of  her 
husband.  Let  us  glance  at  the  whole  passage  :  **  For  the 
woman  under  marriage  to  a  man  has  been  bound  to  the  living  man 
as  law  (notice  the  dative),  but  if  the  man  die  she  has  been  brought 
to  nothing  as  to  the  law  of  the  man.  *  *  *  6't;  then,  my 
brethren,  ye  also  have  become  dead  as  to  the  law  by  the  body  of 
Christ."  Instead  of  meaning  that  we  are  dead,  which  would 
spoil  the  comparison  between  man  and  wife,  it  means  virtually 
i\\dX  the  la7i'  is  dead  as  to  us,  or,  availing  of  what  is  really  in 
the  idiom,  that  we  are  dead  as  to  the  law's  constitutional  claim, 
just  as  the  woman  might  be  said  to  be  dead,  though  it  were 
really  the  man,  if  she  were  said  to  be  dead  to  the  law  of  her 
husband,  or,  if  you  please,  dead  to  her  husband,  if  he  were 
taken  away  by  death  ;  and  even  our  English  Version  seals  all 
this,  for  it  departs  from  the  actual  Greek  (v.  6)  by  translating, 
— *'  that  being  dead  wherein  we  were  held"  when  the  Revisionists 
adhere  to  the  idiom,  and  come  just  to  the  side  of  "■  dead  to  sin  " 
and  "•  dead  to  the  law"  for  they  say  :  ''Now  we  have  been  dis- 
charged fro?n  the  law,  having  died  to  that  wherein  we  were  holden, 
so  that  we  serve  in  newness  of  spirit  and  not  in  oldness  of  the 
letter"  (Re.). 

If  the  law,  therefore,  which  is  "  the  strength  of  sin  "  (i  Cor. 
15  :  56),  and  which  gives  me  over  to  my  sinfulness,  so  that  Paul 
cries  out  "  I  had  been  alive  without  the  law  at  any  time,"  could 
die,  that  is,  could  cease  to  curse  me  with  my  sinfulness,  that 
would  be  my  dying  as  to  the  most  troublesome  consiiiution  of 
my  history.  On  a  certain  occasion,  therefore,  we  "  died  to  law  " 
(7  :  4),  just  as  on  the  same  occasion  we  "  died  to  sin  "  (6  :  2), 
and  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  llows  conspicuously 
from  the  surrounding  passages.  We  "  died  to  sin"  just  as  we 
"  lived  to  God  "  (6  :  10,  via tr rial  dative).  The  Ood-part  of  our 
nature  acc^uired  life,  just  as  the  sin  part  of  our  nature  began 
to  perish  ;  and  this,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  thoroughly  agrees 
with  the  account  of  where  we  get  that  life  (vs.  3,  4),  and  of  how 
we  got  sin  "planted"  wlu-re  it  became  stricken  with  decay. 


176  ROMANS. 

Now  one  sentence  more,  and  we  shall  be  ready  for  those  next 
verses.  **  How  ?  "  The  appeal  is  this.  Not,  ought  we  to  con- 
tinue sinning,  but  can  we  ?  The  whole  is  dimmed  by  that  mis- 
erable fact  that  we  do  continue  sinning.  Christ  is  the  only  man 
who  "  died  to  sin  "  entirely.  He  not  only  never  sinned,  but  at 
a  given  date  he  shook  off  his  horrible  temptations.  But  how 
is  it  with  us  ?  The  apostle's  argument  is  thoroughly  achieved 
tantis  p7-o  tantis.  Just  so  far  as  we  **  died  to  sin,''  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  live  in  it.  And  as  we  positively  did  die,  and  that  at 
a  certain  date,  and,  moreover,  in  a  way  that  promises  a  continued 
dying,  Paul's  argument  is  complete.  Either  we  "  died  to  sin  " 
in  part,  or  not  at  all.  If  we  '*  died  to  sin  "  at  all,  we  have  caught 
the  true  sight  of  it  as  the  great  Sinai  curse,  and  at  any 
rate  cannot  live  in  it,  or  else  the  premise  is  undone  that  it  died 
within  us. 

3.  Or  do  ye  not  know  that  as  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Christ  Jesus,  were  baptized  into  His  death  ? 

"Or."  This  is  a  deft  rhetoric.  Paul  quietly  implies  that 
they  ought  not  to  require  this  explanatory  sequel.  "  Do  ye  not 
know."  They  ought  to  know.  Paul  thus  daintily  expresses 
it  that  he  comes  to  the  heart  of  their  own  religion.  "  Bap- 
tized'*  Four  theories  are  possible  for  this  :  First,  that  the 
rite  was  Paul's  mere  illustration  (They  had  all  been  bap- 
tized. Now,  what  did  that  imply  ?)  ;  or,  second,  that  bap- 
tism was  the  opus  operatuni,  or,  more,  the  means  of  their  actual 
liberation  ;  or,  thirdly,  that  it  was  but  a  pregnancy,  like  "  cir- 
cumcision "  (Col.  2:  11)  expressing  a  whole  change,  or, 
fourthly,  that  it  was  this  and  the  first  thing  all  together  :  that 
Paul  called  conversion  baptism  in  order  to  embrace  in  the 
word  pregnant  and  telling  elucidation.  Ritualists  might 
adopt  the  third,  but  the  last  is,  of  course,  the  most  forceful 
and  all  comprehensive.  "Baptized  into  Christ."  Con- 
verted or  new-born  morally.  "Were  baptized  into  His 
death."  Physical  "  ^<f^//z  "  was  one  of  the  smallest  parts  of 
His  undertaking.  Christ's  "  death  "  began  by  His  taking  our 
nature  at  all.     It  was  loaded  with  corruption.     In  spite  of 


CHAPTER   VI.  177 

His  Godhead  and  of  God  shadowing  Mary  in  His  very  con- 
ception, the  man  was  born  **  infirm  "  (Heb.  5:2);  and  though 
''separated  {Htxi^ptof^tvog)  from  sinners"  (Heb.  7  :  26),  He  had 
to  be  that  very  thing — '^separated;''  and,  having  penalty  to 
endure,  I  mean  for  His  whole  race,  Himself  and  His  people 
(Heb.  5  :  3  ;  7  :  27  ;  9  :  7),  that  penalty  was  horrid  torment 
(Matt.  26  :  T^^),  and  that  torment  was  awful  tempting  (Lu.  22  : 
44;  Heb.  12  :  4),  and  that  temi)ting  must  cover  His  race 
(Matt.  26  :  41  ;  Heb.  2  :  10),  that  is  to  say.  He  had  to  endure 
a  desertion  by  His  Godhead  which  left  Him  barely  sinless 
(Heb.  5:7;  Matt.  27  :  46},  and  o[)i)rcssed  by  awful  snares, 
through  which  He  cut  His  way  in  most  fearful  agony.  This 
agony  saved  the  world.  "  It  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise 
Him  "  (Is.  53  :  10).  He  not  only  resisted  sin  by  the  help  of 
His  Godhead  enough  to  carry  Him  along  sinless,  but  enough 
to  fight  over  again  Adam's  battle  ;  and,  w^hile  Adam  died  in 
sin  from  a  condition  of  righteousness.  Himself  to  die  "  to  sin  " 
from  a  condition  of  inherited  "infirmity"  (Heb.  5  :  2).  This 
now  is  what  our  Saviour  did.  He  fought  through  a  terrible 
struggle,  and  finally  died  to  so  much  of  self  as  tempted  Him. 
Sin  ceased  to  assail.  And  when  those  syllables  floated  over 
Jewry,  ''  It  is  finished,"  this  tenth  verse  was  realized.  He 
"  (ficci  [iiorist)  to  sin  once,"  and  never  again  had  He  a  touch  of 
this  so-called  "  infirmity." 

Now  the  thought  which  the  apostle  builds  upon,  and  which 
he  assumes  that  the  Romans  ought  to  know,  is  that  we  share 
in  that  death.  And  He  calls  the  history  by  which  we  become 
the  sharers,  baptism  ;  just  as  on  another  occasion  he  calls  it 
confession  (Rom.  10  :  10).  It  makes  very  little  difference  what 
he  calls  it.  Only  in  calling  it  baptism  he  gives  fine  occasion 
for  the  picturesque.  Just  as  bajnism  occurs  and  is  over,  so  at 
a  certain  time  (aorist)  believers  "  were  baptized  into  Christ." 
And  Paul  reminds  them  that  they  "were  baptized  into  His 
death;"  that  is,  as  His  whole  struggle  ending  in  His  being 
made  perfect  "  (Heb.  5  :  9)  is  called  His  death,  and  involved 
the  last  agony  of  it,  viz.,  His  dying  "  unto  sin,'*  so  they  '■'iverr 
baptized  into''  this  very  thing,  that  is,  stripping  the  figure,  they 


178  ROMANS. 

''^  died  to  sin"  the  moment  they  became   united  to  Christ,  and 
enjoyed  in  this  way  the  benefit  of  His  sorrow. 
Nothing  more  of  difficulty  remains. 

4.  Therefore  we  were  buried  with  Him  by  the  baptism 
into  the  death ; 

These  are  all  aorists.  And  the  meaning  now  is  quite 
intelligible.  And  our  Baptist  brethren  believe  that  the  figure 
becomes  very  close.  We  were  actually  "buried,"  when  con- 
verted, by  a  spiritual  "baptism"  into  His  ''  death,''  so  as  to 
share  the  deadening  influence  which  He  won  against  sin. 

4.  That  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  among  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  might  walk  in 
newness  of  life. 

"Raised  from  among  the  dead."  We  can  no  longer 
degrade  this  into  mere  bodily  rising,  any  more  than  the  death 
into  mere  physical  dissolution.  ^^  Fro/n  among  the  dead."  Was 
He  not  one  of  us  ?  Peter  calls  Him  a  man  *'  who  had  been 
given  over  to  death  {davaTuddg)  according  to  the  flesh  "  (that  is 
in  respect  to  what  His  flesh  would  have  made  Him  but  for 
His  Godhead),  "  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit  "  (i  Pet.  3  :  18). 
Paul  says  we  are  "  quickened  together  with  Christ  "  (Eph. 
2  :  5).  He  repeats  this  many  and  many  a  time  (Col.  2  :  13  ; 
Rom.  8:11,  see  comment.).  There  must  be  meaning  in  it. 
Christ  is  called  "  the  first  begotten  from  among  the  dead  " 
(ex  rwv  vEKpuv)  ;  and  though  there  is  no  real  difference  between 
dying  to  sin  and  living  to  God,  and  one  is  but  explanatory  of 
the  other,  yet  they  are  very  joyful  explanations.  Just  as  ^'  we 
were  buried  with  (Christ)  by  the  baptism  into  the  death"  so,  at 
the  same  moment,  we  were  *'  raised"  with  Him  by  "  the  bap- 
tism "  into  a  better  "  life." 

Now,  what  made  Christ  win  ?  First,  His  Godhead,  in  giv- 
ing dignity  and  price-availing  value  to  what  He  paid  for  His 
people  ;  and,  second,  His  Godhead,  again,  in  giving  Him 
^' power.  He  was  "determined  upon  as  the  Son  of  God  in 
power  "  (i  :  4).  His  courage  would  have  snapped  like  a  silly 
reed   but   for   the   presence   of   His    Godhead.      "  It    spake 


CHAPTER   VI. 


'79 


roughly  to  Him,  and  said  strange  things  to  Him  "  (  Gen. 
42  :  7),  yet  it  stood  by  Him  to  the  last.  It  never  did  really 
'''forsake''  Him,  even  in  the  last  agonies  of  that  bloody  cru- 
cifixion (Matt.  27  :  46).  It  not  only  sustained  Him,  but  it 
enlightened  Him,  poured  "glory"  into  His  mind.  Just  as 
the  gospel  saves  by  a  moral  revelation  which  Paul  calls  ''  the 
righteousness  of  God"  being  ''revealed''  (i  :  17),  so  the 
*' glory"  of  God  being  revealed  to  Him,  saved  Christ.  And, 
therefore,  in  two  ways,  by  dignity  and  by  ?noral  illumination, 
that  is  by  two  forms  of  gi3.ct,  forensic  and  effectual,  in  court 
and  in  the  man  Himself,  our  text  is  answered  to  and  Christ  is 
"  raised  from  among  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father." 

Let  it  be  understood  that  Paul  presses  his  argument.  This 
is  not  the  Jm  of  intention,  but  the  ha  of  result  (see  Com.  6:1). 
He  does  not  mean  if  •*  baptized  into  "  Him  we  have  the  privilege 
of  rising  with  Him,  but  what  he  means  by  "baptism  "  is  our 
actually  doing  it.  A/ay  we  continue  in  sin  and  grace  grow 
greater  ?  Impossible.  Ho7u  shall  we  who  have  actually  lost  sin 
(of  course  he  means  in  measure)  go  on  icith  it  besides  ? 

The  next  verse  is  even  more  positive.  Christ  "was  raised 
(entirely)  from  among  the  dead."  We  are  not  quite  so  fortunate 
as  that,  but  still  "  raised"  already,  so  as  to  "  walk  in  newness 
of  life." 

5 .  For  if  we  have  been  bred  in  with  Him  in  the  likeness  of 
His  death,  on  the  contrary  also  we  shall  belong  to  His  resur- 
rection ;  6.  Knowing  this  that  our  old  man  was  crucified 
with  Him,  so  that  the  body  of  sin  should  be  destroyed,  that 
we  should  no  longer  serve  sin. 

We  "icere  baptized  (aorist)  into  Christ"  at  a  given  time, 
viz.,  when  we  were  converted  and  partook  in  that  way  of  the 
benefits  of  His  dying.  But  we  "  have  been  bred  in  with 
Him."  The  apostle  lapses  into  the  perfect.  He  speaks  of  a 
"likeness."  We  were  "  baptized,"  not  into  the  "likeness  "  of 
death,  but  into  His  very  dying.  But  "  7i.'e  have  been  bred  in 
with  "  (Christ)  variously,  and  perhaps  on  that  account  He 
changes  into  the  perfect.  We  "  have  been  bred  in  with  "  (Christ) 
in  being  bred  at  all,  for  our  horrible  curse   He  participated  in 


j8o  ROMANS, 

by  His  descent  from  Adam.  We  were  bred  in  with  Christ,  and 
that  in  a  nobler  way,  when  we  were  converted,  and  if  that 
were  all,  it  might  be  put  in  the  aorist.  But,  again,  and  more 
perhaps  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle,  we  have  been  bred  in  with 
Christ  into  His  horrible  temptations.  This  was  the  essence  of 
His  "  deaths  And  as  long  as  the  word  "  likeness  "  is  employed 
here,  the  portrait  fits.  Christ's  sufferings  were  entire,  and  we 
were  baptized  into  them  (when  we  repented)  as  our  complete 
redemption  ;  and  yet  Paul  speaks  of  filling  up  "  that  which  is 
behind  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  "  (Col.  i  :  24).  Perhaps  this 
word  '*  likeness  "  is  as  good  a  solvent  for  such  a  sentence  as  we 
could  possibly  employ.  In  respect  of  ransom  we  are  baptized 
entirely  into  another  man's  death,  and  He  is  our  entire  deliv- 
erance, but  in  respect  of  discipline,  we  die  in  the  likeness  of 
His  death.  "  Our  old  man  was  crucified  with  Him."  When 
He  was  nailed  to  the  cross  we  were.  Not  only  were  we  nailed 
there  in  the  shape  of  a  court  deliverance,  but  our  old  man  was 
nailed  there,  so  that  when  we  became  "  bred  in  with  Christ," 
our  crucifixion  should  begin,  and  we  should  begin  to  writhe 
and  agonize  and  wrestle  with  our  iniquity.  "  So  that  the  body 
of  sin  should  be  destroyed."  We  read  elsewhere  of  "  l/ie 
flesh  of  sin  "  (8  :  3),  very  properly  translated  '"''  siiiful  flesh  '* 
(E.  v.).  These  verses  bring  the  whole  subject  before  us. 
Crucifixion  is  not  death.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  horrible, 
feverish,  agonizing  life.  "  They  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified 
the  flesh  "  (Gal.  5  :  24).  And  Paul  means  just  that  here.  We 
are  infinitely  far  from  having  destroyed  it.  But  we  are 
destroying  it.  And  Paul's  argument  is  just  this.  Sin  being 
our  original  curse  ;  and  Christ  having  borne  it  ;  and  having 
borne  it  not  by  succumbing  under  it,  but  in  having  been  tor- 
mented by  it  in  horrible  temptations,  we  are  baptized  into  Him 
in  two  respects,  one  final  in  having  been  bought  off  by  grace, 
and  one  daily,  being  "  bred  in  with  Him  in  the  likeness  of  His 
death,"  that  is,  nailed  to  a  perpetual  cross,  and,  like  ''  the 
Captain  of  our  salvation,"  made  "  perfect  by  suffering." 

''^  Bred  in  with.''     The   word  is   from  ^i;w,   not   from  (pvTsvu. 
"On  the  contrary."    We  are  to  give  aUd  its  force.     Death, 


CHAPTER   VI.  i8i 

where  it  consists  in  torture,  is  very  different  from  life  when 
the  victory  is  achieved.  "  Belong  to."  ''Shall  be  also  of" 
(E.  V.)  would  be  much  nicer.  The  difficulty  is  that  it  is 
ambiguous.  "  //  bred  in  the  likeness  of  His  death,  we  shall 
be  also  of  His  resurrection  "  (E.  V.)  would  be  the  literal  Greek  ; 
but  it  would  inevitably  read  as  though  it  meant  ''we  shall  be 
<^r^(/,  d^r.,"  whereas  it  is  the  ''be"oi  independent  assertion. 
"  We  shall  be  of  His  resurrection."  We  translate  it,  therefore, 
"  beloni-:'  "  Resurrection  ;  "  of  course  out  of  *'  death"  the 
wider  and  the  darker  death,  viz.,  our  sinfulness.  And  here 
consists  the  argument  of  the  apostle.  If  we  are  baptized  into 
His  death,  we  actually  die,  that  is  die  to  sin.  "  Our  old  man 
has  been  actually  crucified."  **  So  that."  Again  it  is 
resultant,  and  not  intentional  (sQe  y.  i).  "The  body  of  sin" 
has  actually  been  destroyed,  "  that  we  no  longer  serve  sin." 
And  though  the  apostle  can  not  always  be  saying  that  this  is 
only  partial,  and  that  crucifixion  does  not  kill  at  once,  yet  he 
reminds  us  that  it  kills  all  the  time.  And  the  gist  of  his  argu- 
ment is  that  we  can  not  make  grace  abound  by  the  perpetra- 
tion of  that  which  grace,  if  it  exists  at  all,  makes  us  hate  and 
fight  and  be  crucified  to  at  the  very  time. 

7.  For  he  who  died  has  been  made  righteous  from  sin." 

We  should  suppose  that  this  meant  Christ,  if  it  did  not  say, 
"  with  Christ  "  instead  of  ''  7c>ith  Him  "in  the  next  passage. 
We  must  understand,  therefore,  a  general  proposition  ;  and  in 
that  event  it  means  any  man,  and,  of  course,  Christ  as  well  as 
His  people.  "He  who  died  "  (aorist)  ;  that  is,  who  has  put 
death  behind  him  as  a  thing  that  has  actually  been  achieved 
and  finished.  To  patter  about  physical  death,  and  to  say  that 
the  apostle  argues  that  a  dead  man  is  out  of  the  reach  of  law, 
is  contemptible.  To  think  of  a  man  stopping  to  say  that  in  a 
discussion  grim  with  spiritual  dying  !  The  very  commentators 
who  say  it,  believe  (wrongfully  no  doubt)  that  a  man  passes  by 
death  at  once  into  the  hands  of  the  law.  We  trifle  by  such 
interpretations.  But  all  sense  here  is  given  by  the  aorist. 
Let  a  man  have  actually  died,  so  that  the  great  spiritual catas- 


1 82  ROMANS. 

trophe  can  be  put  into  the  aorist  form,  and  be  entife  in  the 
past,  and  ^^  he  dieth  no  viorey  Paal  presently  uses  that  lan- 
guage (v.  9).  He''//^i"  been  raised  (aorist)  from  among  the 
dead.'*  The  curse  has  burned  out.  And  as  this  same  passage 
expresses  it,  ''  Death  hath  710  more  dominioti  over  him.'' 

Now  let  us  make  this  very  plain.  "  The  wages  of  sin  is 
death  "  (Rom.  6  :  23),  or,  as  all  men  agree,  the  original  and 
only  denunciation  was,  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die."  This  is  the  only  curse,  and  so  exclusively 
one,  that  if  death  could  cease,  that  is  if  sin,  which  is  death, 
could  burn  out  in  the  soul,  that  second  thing  would  stop,  viz., 
eternal  torment.  This  all  men  would  admit.  And  the  misery 
is,  that  sin  will  not  cease,  but  feeds  upon  what  it  practices, 
and  men  grow  worse  in  iniquity,  and  that  by  the  law  of  God, 
and  by  the  law  of  their  own  nature.  If  a  man  could  die  and 
get  into  the  aorist,  that  is  get  it  to  be  in  some  way  the  fact 
that  he  had  endured  spiritual  dissolution,  and  actually 
exhausted  it,  and  run  it  out  as  a  spiritual  penalty,  then, 
according  to  our  passage,  he  would  be  "  made  righteous 
from  sin ;  "  but  David,  in  a  badly  translated  psalm,  says  that 
this  is  impossible.  Let  us  render  the  simple  Hebrew  :  "  None 
of  them  can,  by  any  means,  redeem  a  brother,  nor  give  to 
God  a  ransom  for  him,  and  a  precious  payment  for  their  soul, 
and  then  cease  forever,  so  that  he  still  live  forever,  and  do  not 
see  corruption  "  (Ps.  49:  7-9).  This  is  an  unnoticed  text,  and 
holds  that,  for  one's  self  or  for  one's  neighbor  or  brother,  no 
man  can  buy  off  guilt'  so  as  to  finish  and  cease,  and  thereafter 
then  still  live  forever,  and  not  see  corruption. 

Now,  what  no  sinner  could  do  (that  is  die  in  the  aorist  tense, 
and  get  it  finished)  Christ  did.  He  *'  finished  transgression, 
and  made  an  end  of  sin  "  (Dan.  9  :  24).  And  what  we  have 
said  half  figuratively.  He  made  almost  literal  in  fiery  tempta- 
tion. He  actually  burned  out  His  weakness.  He  endured 
innocently  fearful  pangs  which  bought  us  off  before  the  law  ; 
and  He  endured,  practically,  fiery  battles,  by  which  he  was 
"  made  perfect^''  the  Bible  tells  us,  and  by  which  at  least  He  got 
the  whole  death  behind  Him,  so  that  He  at  least  answers  to  the 


CHAPTER    I'l  183 

Greek,  "JTir  died  to  sin  "  (6  :  10),  and  to  this  neighbor  passage, 
put  in  the  form  of  sometliing  universal,  "  For  he  who  JirJ  Jujs 
been  made  rii^/iteous  from  sin.'' 

And  we  see,  too,  at  this  stage  how  Christ  may  be  said  to  be 
^^  made  rig hteotis.'*  He  never  was  made  wicked.  And  yet  He 
is  said  to  be  "  sanctified  "  (Jo.  10  :  36),  and  to  "  sanctify  " 
Himself  (Jo.  17  :  19).  We  are  told  very  early  in  the  Bible 
that  He  was  to  be  "  saved  "  (Zech.  9:9,  and  He  entreats  that 
God  may  save  Him  (Heb.  5  :  7).  Moreover,  He  was  **  raised 
frofn  a?nong  the  dead''  (i  Pet.  i  :  21),  and  in  this  respect,  not 
in  time,  but  in  sequence,  he  was  *' the  first  begotten  "  (Rev. 
I  :  5).  That  He  should  be  said  to  be  "■  7nade  righteous  "  is  a 
light  difficulty,  after  all  these  stronger  expressions.  If  a  iium 
is  tempted,  and  tempted  to  the  very  death,  and  so  tempted  in 
a  peccable  nature  as  to  be  said  to  "have  infirmity"  in  the 
very  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  to  cease  all  this,  and 
to  become  restfully  and  gloriously  righteous,  not  painfully  and 
strugglingly  so,  and  to  take  Piis  place,  as  we  shall  one  day  do, 
in  the  glories  of  a  most  spontaneous  obedience,  answers  to  all 
the  expressions  of  our  chapter.  Such  a  man  has  **  died  to  sin  " 
finally  and  in  the  very  letter,  and  such  a  man  has  been  "  made 
righteous,"  no  longer  in  the  agonies  of  a  perpetual  fight,  but 
as  "being  made  perfect"  (Heb.  5:9);  as  having 'Mearned 
obedience"  (Heb.  5  :  8);  as  having  "(entered)  into  glory" 
(Lu.  24  :  26),  and  as  being,  what  we  will  one  day  be,  delight- 
fully and  without  a  fight,  peacefully  and  by  a  new  nature, 
obedient. 

Now,  how  could  this  be  universal  ?  In  a  way  altogether 
different.  Christ  could  literally  complement  the  Psalmist.  He 
could  redeem  His  own  cursed  humanity,  and  do  literally  as 
David  asked  :  that  is.  He  could  pay  the  precious  ransom,  and 
^^  cease"  that  is,  in  this  God-like  aorist  sense,  do  the  thing  and 
finish  it,  and  then  do  what  the  song  boldly  announces  as 
impossible  for  any  sinner,  that  is,  "still  live  forever  and  never 
see  corruption."  And  this  is  the  way  Christ  puts  it  on  the 
road  to  Emmaus  :  "  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered,  and  to 
enter  into  His  glory  "  (Lu.  24  :  26). 


1 84  ROMANS. 

So  he  saved  Himself  (Zech.  9  :  9).  And  now  Paul  is  busy 
with  our  share  in  this  aorist  ceasing.  Christ  broke  the  bars  of 
the  pit  by  bearing  innocently  the  penalties  of  the  law.  We 
broke  them  when  "  we  were  bred  in  with  "  Christ.  "  He  who 
died  has  been  made  righteous  from  sin.''  Christ  ^*  died" 
when  He  finished  His  sufferings;  and  we  "  ^/(f^ "  when  we 
took  a  share  in  them  ;  that  is,  when  we  were  grafted 
into  Christ  (6:5);  when  we  were  circumcised  (Col.  2  :  11)  ; 
when  we  were  baptized  into  His  death  (6:3);  when  we 
believed  (13  :  11)  ;  when  we  repented  (Matt.  12  :  41)  ;  when 
we  were  washed  in  His  blood  (Rev.  i  :  5)  ;  when  we  took  up 
His  cross  (Matt.  10  :  38)  ;  when  we  discerned  His  body  (i  Cor. 
II  :  29)  ;  when  we  confessed  Him  before  men  (Matt.  10  :  32)  ; 
or,  when  (abandoning  all  the  rhetoric  of  the  gospel),  we 
turned  from  sin  to  holiness  by  the  power  of  the  Almighty 
asked  for  through  Christ's  redemption. 

It  must  not  go  unsaid  how  this  text,  which  even  King 
James'  men  are  shy  of  in  their  indifferent  translation  (for 
6iKai6o)  never  means  to  free,  E.  V.),  sustains  the  doctrine  of 
anti-Lutheran  enrighteousment. 

8.  But  if  we  died  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall 
also  live  with  Him,  9.  Knowing  that  Christ,  having  been 
raised  from  among  the  dead,  dies  no  more ;  death  no 
more  has  dominion  over  Him ;  10.  For  in  that  He  died 
He  died  as  to  sin  once,  but  in  that  He  lives  He  lives  as 
to  God.  11.  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be 
dead  indeed  as  to  sin,  but  alive  as  to  God  in  Christ  Jesus. 

We  have  shown  that  Iva  (vs.  4,  6)  was  a  Iva  of  result,  and 
that  Paul  was  arguing,  not  what  they  ought  to  do,  but 
what  they  did  do  if  they  were  Christians.  If  they  were 
baptized  into  Christ,  they  were  baptized  into  His  death,  and  if 
they  died  with  Him,  it  did  not  only  follow  that  they  ought  to 
live  with  Him,  but  that  they  actually  did  live  with  Him,  else 
they  did  not  die.  He  now  goes  further,  and  adds  another 
round  to  his  ladder  by  claiming  that  they  believed  all  this. 
"  Afay  we  continue  in  sin  and  grace  grow  the  7?iore  ?  By  no 
means''  (v.  i),  because  ye  yourselves,  who   might  carelessly 


CHAPTER   VI.  185 

litter  such  a  speech,  "  believe  "  the  opposite.  For  "If  we  died 
with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  Him." 
Nay,  ye  know  it,  ''  kNcmnni^^  that  Christ,  having  been  raised 
from  among  the  dead,"  that  is  '"from  amofi^^'^  the  spirit- 
ually ''dead"  by  a  wonderful  battle,  itself  a  horrid  death,  in 
which  His  Godhead  enabled  Him  to  continue  sinless,  "dies  no 
more,"  that  is,  writhes  no  more  in  that  frail  and  tempted 
nature  ;  but  lives  the  victor,  sin's  awful  snare  no  longer  shut- 
ting him  about.  What  He  reached,  therefore,  we  are  reaching 
if  '^  7,<e  are  bred  in  icit/i  Him  "  (v.  5).  "  In  that  He  died  He 
died  as  to  sin  once  for  all."  ^\'e  have  explained  all  that. 
**In  that  He  lives.  He  lives  as  to  God."  That  is  the 
same  thing  differently  put.  He  that  is  dead  to  sin  lives 
to  God.  Though  this  dative  still  deserves  a  thorough 
clearing  up.  It  is  the  "  dative  of  material."  If  a  man  "  died  to 
sin  "  (aorist),  there  came  a  time  when  the  sin-trait  in  his  nature 
perished.  In  Christ's  case  this  was  complete.  When  He  cried 
**  It  is  finished,"  it  perished  altogether.  But  it  never  was  a 
sin-trait  of  absolute  sinfulness  ;  it  was  only  horrible  tempta- 
tion. Christ  died  to  sin  on  losing  that.  But  we  died  ''bred 
in  7i'ith  "  Christ.  Ours  was  actual  sinfulness  ;  but  alas  !  it  did 
not  die  :  it  was  only  crucified.  Our  sin  was  set  a-dying.  Yet 
that  happened  at  a  definite  date  (aorist),  and  was  the  harbin- 
ger of  an  entire  sanctification.  "//;  that  He  lives."  Now  this 
is  the  other  statement.  Ii  will  be  noticed  that  we  change  the 
particle.  If  we  say  "He  liveth  unto  God"  (E.  V.  &  Re.), 
it  would  seduce  us  as  it  does  the  other  commentators.  It 
does  not  mean  that  Christ  lives  to  God  in  the  sense  of  serving 
Him.  That  would  be  obvious,  and  would  destroy  the  para- 
graph. Dying  to  sin  means  dying  '^ as  to"  sin  ;  that  is,  the  sin 
part  of  the  man  dying.  Living  to  God  must  have  some 
kindred  sense,  and  therefore  we  translate  living  ''*■  as  to"  God. 
We  die  "as  to"  sin  when  sin  dies,  and  we  live  "as  to"  God 
when  God  lives,  that  is  when  He  is  our  life,  or  as  Paul  ex- 
presses it  (Gal.  2  :  20),  when  it  is  not  we  that  live,  but  He 
that  lives  within  us.  Paul  then  draws  his  inference,  If  this  be 
so  of  Christ,  and  you  were  "bred  in  with  Him,"  and  what 


1 86  ROMANS. 

happens  to  Him,  not  ought  to  happen,  but  actually  does 
happen,  ccEteris  paribus,  to  yourselves  ;  and  above  all  if  ye 
"believe"  this,  and  ^^ knoio''  this,  then  go  on  knowing  and 
believing,  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  "Likewise  reckon  ye  also 
yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  as  to  sin,  but  alive  as  to 
God  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Paul's  logic,  however,  does  not  forbid,  but  actually  encour- 
ages entreaty.  He  does  not  relax  an  instant  in  the  verses  we 
have  finished,  but  confines  our  minds  to  an  iron  sequence  of 
results.  ^^  He  that  died  has  been  made  righteous  from  sin."  It 
is  impossible,  so  he  argues,  to  be  both  alive  and  dead.  And 
so  of  Christ.  If  He  "  died  to  sin  "  by  force  of  the  Godhead 
that  is  within  Him,  He  lives  to  that  Godhead,  or,  as  we  have 
expounded  that  dative,  "  as  to  "  it,  or  in  that  essential  essence 
of  His  life.  All  that  is  plain.  If  Christ  be  glorified,  He  can- 
not at  the  same  time  be  tried.  And  we  who  are  planted  with 
Him  meet  with  the  same  necessity.  If  we  be  dead  to  sin,  we 
must  necessarily  live  to  something  else.  And  if  we  are  dead 
imperfectly,  that  explains  our  miserable  stupidity  of  speech. 
Just  so  far  as  we  are  dead,  just  so  far  and  no  farther  are  we 
sinless.  And  continuing  in  sin  in  order  to  quicken  grace,  could 
only  be  a  thought  conceived  of  by  men  who  had  far  too  little 
grace,  inasmuch  as,  if  we  have  grace  at  all,  the  very  essence 
of  the  gift  is  a  shrinking  and  a  deliverance  from  our  sin. 

Paul,  therefore,  having  finished  one  argument,  stops  a 
moment  for  entreaty. 

12.  Let  not  sin,  therefore,  reign  in  your  mortal  body  in 
an  obedience  to  its  desires;  13.  Nor  through  sin  give 
over  your  members  as  weapons  of  unrighteousness ;  but 
give  yourselves  over  unto  God,  as  though  alive  from 
among  the  dead,  and  your  members  through  God  as 
weapons  of  righteousness.  14.  For  sin  shall  not  have 
dominion  over  you;  for  ye  are  not  under  law  but  under 
grace. 

There  are  six  things  that  must  be  kept  in  view  all  through 
this  epistle  :  First,  that  the  great  curse  of  sin  is  sinfulness. 
This  we  have  a  strange  liking  to  forget  ;  and  in  every  nation 


CHAPTER   VI.  187 

torment  and  the  rougher  consequences  of  the  Fall  come  up 
before  men  as  their  perdition.  Second,  it  is  the  law  that 
works  this  sinfulness.  1  mean  by  that  it  is  the  law  that  gives 
us  over  to  our  sins.  Nothing  can  be  more  revealed.  It  was 
the  original  threat,  Eat  and  thou  shalt  die.  Paul  continues  it 
in  a  maxim,  "  The  wages  of  sin  is  death  ;  "  and  in  a  philoso- 
phy, *'  The  strength  of  sin  is  the  law  ;"  and  in  an  inspired  con- 
viction, *'  I  had  been  alive  without  the  law  at  any  time."  We 
cannot  be  too  rooted  in  this  in  understanding  the  epistle. 
This  is  why  our  own  righteousness  is  insisted  upon  by  Paul  ; 
for  our  being  made  righteous  in  the  shape  of  faith  is  the  begin- 
ning of  our  whole  grace  and  hope  and  fmal  glory  in  the 
Redeemer.  Men  think  it  safe  to  praise  Christ  as  our  whole 
righteousness  in  court,  but  it  is  Paul's  way  to  praise  Him  for 
our  ransom,  and  to  build  on  that  our  own  righteousness  through 
the  gospel.  Third,  it  is  the  law  that  has  to  be  satisfied,  and 
when  the  law  is  satisfied,  we  cease  to  be  sinful.  Fourth,  it  is 
satisfied  by  Christ.  It  is  satisfied,  as  Paul  declares,  by  that 
life  of  agony  which  Paul  calls  His  death.  And  it  is  satisfied 
for  us  when  we  are  baptized  into  His  death,  that  is  *' bred  in 
with  Him"  into  His  sufferings,  and  become  entitled  thereby 
to  our  share  of  His  blessed  redemption.  Fifth,  this  is  what  is 
meant  by  our  not  being  under  law  (v.  14);  and,  sixth,  our 
redemption  (Eph.  4  :  30)  is  so  imperfect,  I  mean  in  its  results, 
and  our  pardon  and  our  enrighteousment  so  incomplete,  that 
we  are  sinners  to  be  reasoned  with,  as  well  as  saints  to  be 
divinely  comforted  ;  so  that  Paul  turns  from  the  argument  that 
he  that  died  to  sin  cannot  live  in  it,  to  remind  us  that,  though 
we  died  to  sin,  still  we  are  living  in  it,  and  to  imply  that  we 
were  only  crucified  with  Christ  ;  that  so  far  as  the  cross  has 
worked,  we  are  dead  to  sin  ;  but  that  in  immense  degrees  it 
has  not  worked  ;  that  this  is  the  demand  for  the  exhortation 
(v.  12;,  and  that,  like  the  inspired  apostle,  we  are  to  carry 
about  ''  in  the  body  the  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  the  life 
also  of  Jesus  might  be  made  manifest  in  our  body  "  (2  Cor.  4  : 
10).  These  relations  of  "  the  law  "  are  the  staple  on  the  part 
of  the  apostle  of  this,  and  also  of  the  following  otepter. 


1 38  ROMANS. 

"Reign;"    either,    first,    in   taking   entire    possession,   or, 
second,   in  capturing  the  will.     In  neither  of  these   respects 
can  the  Christian  admit  sin.     Sin  cannot   ^^  reign;'    for  he  is 
crushing  it,  and  he  cannot  be  wilful  in  his  wickedness,  for 
that  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  his  warfare  with  it.     "  In  your 
mortal  body."     Sin  is  altogether  privative.     Of  course  it  is 
so    or  whence  the  command  ?      The  sole   command    of   the 
Almighty  is  -  Thou  Shalt  love  "  (Matt.  22  :  37)-     We  need  not 
pause  upon  this.     There  are  really  two  affections,  but  this 
does  not  disturb  their  nature.     Paul  boldly  declares  the  emo- 
tional nature  of  our  duty,  and  challenges  any  rival.     He  serves 
up  half  the  decalogue,  and  with  a  wave  of  the  hand  says,  ''  If 
there  be  any  other  commandment ; "  and  then  most  authorita- 
tively puts  it  in  the  declaration,  -  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the 
law."     Hence  the   "  body  "  is  the  throne  of  ''  sinr     If  there  be 
not  conscience  enough  in  our  dead  nature,  that  is,  not  love 
enough,  other  appetites  take  possession.     Hence  it  is  wrong 
to  say  ''  lusts  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.).   The  apostle's  word  is  "  desires. 
It  is  the  simplest  Greek  for  that  innocent  affection.     It  is  no 
harm  to  desire  money.     All  the  appetites  of  the  body  are  inno- 
cent impulses  of  our  nature.     The  -  flesjr  which  Paul  con- 
stantly  condemns,  is  all  of  our  constitution  as  men,  outside  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.     Let  a  man  have  the  most  exquisite  tastes, 
they  are  of  the  ^^  flesh  "  according  to  Paul.     And  these  fleshly 
"  desires  "  are  our  sins.     What  else  could  they  be  according  to 
Paul?     ''  What  I  do  I  know  not''  he  says  in  another   chapter 
(7  :  15).     And  how  could  he  know  it  ?     Knowing  my  sin  when 
it  consists  in  a  want,  would  be  like  knowing  holiness  in  meas- 
ures that  exceed   my  conscience.     Like  the  neck  of  a  man 
whose  sinews  have  been  cut   on  the  right,  the  crookedness 
occurs  on  the  left.     ''Desire"  pulls  over  the  sinner.     And 
what  would  be  innocent,  balanced  by  virtue,  grow  monstrous 
when,  in  the  absence  of  love,  they  become  the  great  exercises 
of  our  sinfulness,  and  hot  tumors  in  the  soul. 

Now  these  principles  take  up  all  the  language  presented  in 
our  Greek.  "  Let  not  sin  reign  in  your  mortal  body."  Here  is 
an  animal  whpse  glory  lay  in  a  love  now  lost.     Wrecks  of  it 


CHAPTER   VI.  189 

remain,  but  decaying  hourly.  He  is  damned  if  he  cannot 
recover  it.  As,  in  a  wild  herd,  the  strong  oxen  trample  the 
weak,  so  a  thousand  other  affections  eat  out  the  heart  of  this 
one.  We  can  supply  what  is  needed  in  the  parable.  Ours  is 
a  "  mortal hoih\"  dying  in  every  sense,  and  sure  to  die  physically 
whether  we  are  redeemed  or  not.  Paul  points  his  finger  at  it 
as  a  seat  of  our  ''^desires''  And  having  expounded  how  its 
'''desires'^  become  our  sins  by  deadening  and  trampling  better 
affections,  he  gives  us  this  simple  direction,  "  Let  not  sin,  t/irre- 
fort\  reign  in  your  mortal  body  in  an  obedience  to  its 
desires,"  that  is,  this  body's  '' desires'"  {av7u\^.  "Nor 
through  sin;"  (the  ''dative  of  material  \"  see  a  little  fur- 
ther on,  "through  God"  {rudii^),  ''sin''  being  the  efficient 
power  in  one  case,  and  ''God"  in  the  other);  "give  over 
your  members  as  weapons  of  unrighteousness ;  but  give 
yourselves  over  unto  God  as  though  alive  from  among  the 
dead,  and  your  members  through  God  as  weapons  of 
righteousness." 

These  quite  unnoticed  expressions,  giving  over  our  members 
as  weapons  of  unrighteousness  "  t/iroug/i  sin,"  and  giving  over 
our  members  as  weapons  of  righteousness  "through  God"  are 
vastly  explanatory  of  the  whole  system  of  the  apostle.  The 
very  thing  that  gives  us  over  is  "sin"  and  the  very  thing  that 
gives  us  over  savingly  is  '*  Ciod."  Each  is  the  ''dative  of 
material  "  {r^ay-apria  and  rw^e^).  We  encounter  the  exact  coun- 
terpart in  another  epistle  :  **  Mighty  through  God  "  (E.  V., 
tuQuCj).  *' The  weapons  of  our  warfare  are  not  fleshly, 
but  mighty  through  Ciod  "  (2  Cor.  10  :  4).  And  while  the  other 
part  of  the  present  sentence  has  rw^tw  in  the  more  usual  dative 
sense  and  is  properly  translated  "give  oi'er  to  God"  it  is  sad  that 
this  part  should  be  so  translated.  As  \\\q  forcer  in  the  Corinthi- 
ans is  nothing  less  than  God,  so  the  "  righteousness  "  in  the  pres- 
ent verse,  or  the  giinng  oi'er,  for  that  is  itself  the  "  righteous- 
ness" is  as  much  *'  God"  within  us  as  the  other  is  "sin  "  within 
us,  and  the  realizing  of  this  is  a  great  point  in  the  whole  epistle.* 

*  It  is  a  dative  without  a  preposition  that  is  found  in  l  Cor.  15  :  10  : — 
'   By  the  grace  of  God  (x^ptri)  I  am  what  I  am." 


I90  ROMANS. 

"  Weapons,''  not  "  instruments  "  (E.  V.  and  Re.).  **  Weapons  " 
is  the  commoner  meaning,  and  we  retain  it  because  there  is  a 
military  cast  which  the  apostle  evidently  intends.  "  The  wages 
of  sin  are  death''  (6  :  23),  that  is,  the  ''rations"  or  ''military 
pay."  "Sin"  fights  desperately,  and  gets  pay  in  "death." 
And  in  another  chapter  Paul  describes  the  conflict.  "  I  see 
another  law  in  my  mei7ibers  warring,  etc."  (7  :  23).  The  shame, 
therefore,  that  Paul  cries  out  against  in  the  Christian  is  that 
he  should  "give  over"  his  "weapons"  to  the  foe,  instead  of 
giving  over  himself  to  God,  and,  through  that  Great  Friend, 
his  "  members  as  weapons  of  righteousness." 

Now  follows  another  of  those  cavil-provoking  sayings  of  the 
apostle  : — "  For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you,  for 
ye  are  not  under  law  but  under  grace." 

15.  What  then  ?  May  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under 
law,  but  under  grace  ? 

This  cavil  is  strong  simply  by  a  mistake.  It  is  the  all-per- 
vading blunder,  which  is  ever  crowding  in,  that  hellis  a  place 
of  pain,  instead  of  a  place  of  both  sin  and  pain.  It  seems 
impossible  to  realize  that  the  law  is  responsible  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  sin  an  hour  ;  for,  though  we  sinned,  if  the  law 
denounced  only  pain,  pain  enough  for  that  one  sin  would  soon 
expiate  it  (Prov.  19  :  19  ;  see  Author's  Com.),  and  life  rw^eo, 
that  is  "through  God"  would  return  at  once.  This  epistle  to 
the  Romans  is  finely  calculated  to  make  us  believe  that  sin  is 
given  up  to  sin  (i  :  24,  26,  28),  and  that,  hence,  its  strength  is 
the  law  (i  Cor.  15  :  56),  and  that,  if  the  law  is  satisfied  (aorist), 
it  must  be  choked  back  in  its  demand,  for  our  abandonment 
for  sin  is  the  prolific  source  of  the  eternity  of  our  pains  and 
sinning.  Satisfy  the  law,  as  Christ  has  done,  and  let  a  sinner 
comply  with  the  conditions  of  that  sacrifice,  and  Paul's  speech 
is  as  simple  as  a  child's.  Sin  is  a  vile  deceiving  of  me,  and 
an  enormous  curse  ;  but,  as  long  as  law  rules,  I  will  remain  a 
sinner.  I  am  a  slave,  as  Paul  calls  me.  But  in  this  grand 
discussion  of  redemption,  it  is  this  very  point  that  he  attacks  : — 


CHAPTER    Vr.  191 

"  Sin  shall  not  fuu-e  dominion  oi'cr  you,  for  yc  are  not  under  law 
but  under  grace"  Had  he  said,  "  Pain  shall  not  have  dominion 
over  you,"  the  cavil  might  have  had  some  sense.  Deliver  me 
from  pain,  and  1  may  sm  without  it.  But  Paul  not  only  con- 
nects sin  with  pain,  and  not  only  makes  sin  the  darker  element 
of  perdition,  and  not  only  makes  perdition  eternal,  both  pain 
and  sin,  but  he  makes  sin  the  precursor  of  our  agonies.  He 
does  indeed  make  Eve's  sin  prelude  our  own,  as  the  precursor 
of  our  sorrow,  but  he  makes  our  own  sin  travel  before  our 
sufferings.  He  teaches  that  plainly  : — "  The  sting  of  death  is 
sin  "  (i  Cor.  15  :  56).  And,  therefore,  personal  righteousness 
is  the  boon  of  the  apostle,  and  personal  sinfulness  is  our  grand 
perdition.  It  is  easy,  therefore,  to  expound  him.  "  May  we 
sin  because  we  are  not  under  law?"  Why,  horrid! 
Being  "  under  la:c'  "  means  being  under  ''sin.'' 

16.  Know  you  not  that  to  whatsoever  ye  give  yourselves 
over  to  obey  as  slaves,  slaves  ye  are  to  whatsoever  ye 
obey,  whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience  unto 
righteousness  ? 

Being  *' not  under  law,"  cannot  possibly  show  itself  but  in 
the  relaxing  of  the  law-hold  by  the  diminishing  of  our  sin- 
fulness. To  say,  Let  us  sin  ^'because  we  are  not  under  laic," 
is  to  say,  Let  us  weave  straws  in  our  hair  because  we  are  no 
longer  insane.  Nay,  it  is  worse  than  that,  for  that  might  be  a 
mere  glad  freak,  but  to  obey  from  the  heart  (v.  17)  the 
great  precepts  of  the  Redeemer,  is  the  essential  "fruit" 
(vs.  21,  22)  of  not  being  ''under  the  law,''  and  as  he  cannot 
obey  from  the  heart,  who  is  seeking  excuses  not  to  obey  at  all, 
the  apostle  means  his  logic  to  be  actually  entire.  We  are 
•'  under  law,"  or  we  are  not.  If  we  are  **  under  law  "  we  will 
"sin,"  for  the  law  demands  that  "sin"  shall  be  given  up  to 
"sin."  If  we  are  "not  under  law"  the  words  have  no  mean- 
ing unless  we  have  diminished  sin,  for  the  law  does  not  ordain 
the  lash,  but  the  lash  and  sinfulness ;  and  if  sinfulness 
"reigns"  we  are  just  mocking  ourselves  by  the  thought  of  our 
deliverance. 


192  ROMANS. 

17.  But  thanks  be  to  God  that  ye  were  slaves  of  sin — 

That  is.  that  that  condition  of  things  is  past — 
17— but  obeyed  from  the  heart  the  form  of  teaching  to 
which  ye  were  given  over. 

Men  are  not  machines,  or  Paul  would  have  said  enough; 
but  men  are  free  agents.  Men  are  not  carried  into  sin,  so 
that  they  are  forced  into  sin,  without  their  agency,  but  they 
die  willingly  ;  that  is,  their  death,  which  is  their  sinfulness,  is 
a  thing  of  choice.  So  of  ^'lawj"  when  we  are  '' 7iot  under 
law,''  we  are  not  raised  like  an  idiot,  or  as  we  may  hope  an 
idiot  may  be,  immediately  back  to  life,  but  we  must  struggle  for 
it.  The  power  is  rwfew  (vs.  lo,  ii),  but  it  is  not  given  ex  viy 
but  in  rousing  our  will.  It  is  not  ridiculous  in  the  apostle  to 
say,  that,  to  a  dead  certainty,  we  once  ''-died  to  sin''  (v.  2)  ; 
and  yet  to  exhort  us  eagerly  not  to  live  in  it  (v.  12). 

Moreover  our  death  was  imperfect.  Our  death  will  not  be 
really  perfect  till  the  time  Christ's  was,  viz.,  when  He  phys- 
ically died.  He  had  not  '■'■  died  to  sin"  (v.  10)  till  His  tempta- 
tions ceased,  and  we  ^^  died  to  sin"  when  we  were  converted, 
and  have  been  dying  ever  since,  and  shall  not  be  really  dead 
till  we  rise  in  judgment.  Hence  Paul  calls  sin,  ''sin  tmto 
death"  (v.  16),  that  is,  the  sinner's  increase  in  sinfulness;  and 
^^ obedietice"  an  ''obedience  unto  righteousness ;"  that  is,  an  im- 
perfect "obedience"  which  is  leading  gradually  to  perfect 
righteousness.  Now  he  tells  us  that  it  is  an  obedience  to  a 
**  form  of  teaching,"  and  we  understand  his  language  at 
once.  It  is  not  a  perfect  righteousness,  but  it  is  an  "  obedience 
of  faith"  (i  :  5  ;  16  :  26);  that  is,  a  compliance  with  those 
commands  of  the  Redeemer  which  slowly  lead  us  on  to  a  per- 
fect "righteousness." 

Hence  now  another  gem  of  the  epistle  ! 

18.  But  having  been  made  free  from  sin,  ye  were  made 
slaves  to  righteousness  19.  (Humanly  speaking)  on  ac- 
count of  the  weakness  of  your  flesh. — 

This  is  very  graphic  !  Paul  is  to  end  this  passage  by  shout- 
ing out,  "  O,  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  Who  shall  deliver  me 
out  of  the  body  of  this  death  ?  "  (Re.,  7  :  24).     And  if  this  sort 


CHAPTER   VI.  193 

of  ruin  survives  even  in  the  Christian,  we  can  easily  understand 
what  is  meant  by  being  "slaves  to  righteousness."  We  are 
"  not  under  law  :  "  that  is  certain  :  and  we  "  died  to  sin  ;  "  that, 
actually,  ant!  in  an  aorist  past,  occurred  ;  and  "^7;/  shall  tiot  hai^e 
dominion  arcr  i/s,"  for  we  were  "made  free"  from  the  law  of 
sin  and  death.  But  all  these  things  have  happened  inchoately, 
as  with  every  grace.  And,  therefore,  Paul  insists  that  we  are 
''slaves  (speaking  humanly),"  and  that  we  must  take  up  a 
daily  cross,  and  welcome  chastisement  in  our  struggle  with 
iniquity. 

It  is  this  complicated  condition  of  our  case  that  gives  covert 
for  cavil.  If  we  "  died  to  sin  "  outright,  or  if  we  were  squarely 
out  from  ''under  law,"  then  "may  we  sin?"  (v.  15),  or  can 
"ice  continue  in  sin?"  (v.  1),  would  be  preposterous;  and 
the  argument  against  it,  that  the  law's  great  curse  was  sin, 
and  we  are  out  from  under  it,  and  that  we  died  the  death  in 
every  respect  of  sin,  would  show  slavery  to  sin  in  the  very  face 
of  it  to  be  impossible.  But  the  misery  is,  we  are  sinning,  and, 
what  is  worse,  we  are  doing  nothing  but  sin  ;  our  being  made 
righteous  is  a  thing  inchoate  ;  and,  therefore,  we  have  to  dig 
down  into  the  apostle's  argumentation,  and  make  all  these 
reserves.  "All  that  is  born  of  God  overcometh  the  world  " 
(i  Jo.  5  :  4).  "  (^^e)  cannot  sin  because  (we  are)  born  of 
God  "  (i  Jo.  4  :  9\  We  '*  died  to  sin,"  and  "  7i'e  are  not  under 
law."  Nevertheless  we  are  yet  but  "slaves  to  righteousness" 
because  of  "  the  weakness  of  [our)  flesh."  W^e  have  not  "  over- 
come the  world  ;  "  we  have  not  "  died  to  sin,"  and  we  are  not 
out  from  under  the  law,  in  results  inwardly  achieved,  except 
in   that  small  beginning  which  we  have  of  piety. 

19.— For  as  ye  gave  over  your  members  as  slaves  to  un- 
cleanness,  and  to  opposition  to  law  unto  still  greater 
opposition  to  law,  so  now  give  over  your  members  as 
slaves  to  righteousness  unto  sanctification.  20.  For  when 
ye  were  slaves  of  sin  ye  were  free  to  be  righteous.  21. 
What  fruit  had  ye  then  of  those  things  of  which  ye  are 
now  ashamed  ?   for  the  end  of  those  things  is  death. 

Here  is  a  wonderful  solution  !  Scarce  a  clearer  thing  occurs 


194  ROMANS. 

in  Scripture.  The  lost  are  sinners,  and  the  saved  are  sinners. 
The  lost  are  free,  and  the  saved  are  free.  They  are  "free  to 
be  righteous  "—the  lost  and  the  saved.  This  is  a  most  im- 
portant dictum  of  the  apostle.  The  angels  are  free  to  sin, 
and  so  is  the  Almighty.  We  ought  to  nurse  this  light,  and 
blazon  it  abroad.  We  lost  it  in  a  mediaeval  age,  and  theology 
still  looks  askance  at  our  full  freedom.  Unless  a  soul  were 
''free  to  be  righteous,'"  it  could  not  possibly  be  wicked.  But 
now  Paul,  rising  to  the  height  of  our  need,  tells  us  a  certain 
something  that  solves  all  the  difficulty.  The  wicked  are  free 
to  sin,  and  they  sin  more  and  more,  making  themselves  slaves 
to  sin,  so  as  to  be  nursed  into  greater  and  greater  opposition 
to  the  law.  So  the  righteous  sin,  being  free  to  do  it  ;  and  they 
sin  shamefully,  and  confuse  us,  in  the  way  we  mention,  as  to 
the  eminent  difference.  But  Paul  states  that  difference,  and 
states  it  on  the  other  side.  Men  are  ''free  to  be  righteous." 
But  alas  !  alas  !  they  never  use  that  freedom.  This  is  the 
curse  of  the  law.  All  are  "free  to  be  righteous**  but  "  death,'* 
which  the  law  brought,  means  a  depravity  of  will.  Men  never 
wish  to  be  righteous,  and  never  will  be,  without  the  grace  of 
the  Almighty.  And  when  Paul  says,  ''  Ye  are  not  imder  law, 
but  wider  grace''  (v.  14),  he  means  this  very  thing — that  we 
got  grace  to  have  a  better  will.  This  is  what  is  meant  by 
being  freed  from  sin.  It  means  freed  from  an  engrossing  will 
to  sin.  And  this  is  what  is  meant  by  being  "  enslaved  to  right- 
eousness," not  joyfully  perfect  in  it,  for  that  would  not  be 
"humanly  speaki?ig,"  nor  would  it  be  to  be  "enslaved."  But 
Paul  states  just  the  condition  of  the  Christian  ;  free  to  sin,  and 
shamefully  given  to  sin  ;  "free  to  be  righteous,"  and  earnestly 
trying  to  be  righteous,  and  succeeding  this  far,  that  while  the 
ungodly  sinner,  equally  free,  could  be  asked  "  W^hat  fruit  had 
ye  "  (by  your  liberty  to  be  righteous)  ?  What  single  result  did 
it  give  you  in  all  "  those  things  of  which  you  are  now  ashaified"  ? 
the  Christian  can  triumph  in  the  words  that  follow  : 

22.  But  now,  having  been  made  free  from  sin,  but  hav- 
ing been  enslaved  to  God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  sanc- 
tifleation,  but  the  end  eternal  life. 


CHAPTER  VI.  195 

"Having  been  made  free  from  sin;"  but  wretchedly 
little  ;  just  as  we  are  sanctified  but  little  (8  :  23),  and  cleansed 
but  little  (Is.  64  :  6),  and  quickened  but  in  the  very  least  degree 
(i  Cor.  3  :  i),and  with  faith  but  as  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  we 
are  "enslaved  to  God;"  alas  !  how  hard  the  bondage  some- 
times (Matt.  10:  38;  16:  24;  Rom.  7:  24),  but  we  "have 
(our)  fruit  unto  sanctification,"  the  lost  not  using  their 
liberty  to  be  righteous,  and  therefore  having  no  fruit  at  all 
(P.S.  1  :  4),  but  we  having  our  fruit  unto  sanctification,  and  at 
last,  when  the  work  is  completed,  perfectness  and  "  eternal 
life." 
"For,"  says  the  apostle,  presenting  the  whole  at  a  glance— 

23.  For  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,  but  the  grace  of  God 
is  eternal  life  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 

But  now  let  us  go  back  (vs.  18-23)  and  attend  to  some  main 
particulars.     ''Having  been  made  free  from  sin  "  (v.  18).     The 
English   cannot   give  directly    the   second     aorist    participle. 
Our  versions  often  change  it  into  what  is  more  direct ;  as  for 
example  ''n^hich  was  7nade  "  ( r  :  3,  E.  V.).     Sometimes  "  luhen  " 
is  used  (Acts  2  137),  and  we  might  say  in  the  present  instance 
*'  when  we  were  7nade  free  from  sin."  The  simpler  choice  however 
is  probably  the  best,  not  "  being  made  free  from  sin  "  (E.  V.  and 
Re.),  but,  using  such  past  as  we  have,  "  //ai'ing  been  made  free." 
''Y'e  were  made  s/a7>es"  (aorist),  and  the   thing  was  done  at  a 
certain  time.      And    Paul   immediately  places  that  act  in   its 
proper  relation.     ''  I  say  a  human  thing"  or  still  more  literally 
transmuted,    **/  speak    of  what  is  human."     Men   have  con- 
founded this  with   Paul  in  other  places, — "/  speak  after  the 
manner  of  men  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.  ;    i  Cor.    15  132;    Gal.  3  :  15). 
This  Greek  is  not  that  Greek  at  all.     This  Greek  occurs  but 
once.      It   means  ''I  describe  what   is  distinctly  a  hu?nan   con- 
dition."    Nothing  could  be  more  express.     A  man  is  converted. 
At  that  aorist  moment  he  is  "  made  free."     Alas  !  what  freeing  ! 
And  at  that  same  moment   he    is  joined  to   another  master. 
Alas  !  what  a  condition  of   obedience  !     And,   therefore,  Paul 
says,  '*/  speak  of  what  is  human"  and  calls  it  a  slavery  to  right- 


196  ROMANS. 

eousness,  a  very  good  word  for  such  a  service  which  is  unwilling- 
and  half-hearted.  He  says,  "  Ye  were  made  slaves  to  righteous- 
ness 071  account  of  the  weakness  of  your  fiesh;  "  and,  in  the  next 
chapter,  facts  come  out  in  respect  to  the  natural  man  (vs.  14-24) 
which  show  where  a  Christian  begins  ;  what  he  started  out  of 
in  his  original  conversion  ;  how  the  word  slavery  is  good  for 
the  sinner  as  well  as  the  saved,  he  being  enslaved  to  sin 
(vs.  14,  23,  24)  against  many  a  better  judgment  ;  and  how  the 
Christian  does  not  answer  to  this  next  chapter  of  the  apostle, 
because  he  is  not  "  carnal,  sold  under  sin,''  but  how  he  does 
answer  to  it  in  his  desperate  fight ;  how  he  has  to  spur  himself 
even  into  common  duties  ;  and  how  being  a  slave  seeming  to 
be  too  harsh  a  condition  to  so  good  a  mistress,  is  too  flattering 
a  state  for  him,  inasmuch  as  he  is  not  even  a  patient  slave,  and 
performs  in  the  very  slenderest  amount  the  duty  that  belongs 
to  ^''  righteousfiessy 

Nevertheless  he  tries  ;  and  this  expounds  the  other  passages. 
The  sinner  does  not  try.  And,  therefore,  though  he  is  ^' free 
to  be  righteous''  (v.  20),  (for  if  the  apostle  meant  ''from  right- 
eousness "  (E.  V.)  he  would  have  said  so;  and  why  did  he  leave 
aTtd  off  in  this  critical  region  of  his  writing  ?),  though  he  is 
''free  in  regard  of  righteousness  "  (Re.),  yet  he  struggles  fitfully 
at  times,  but  never  uses  his  liberty.  He  struggles  sufficiently 
against  sin  to  illustrate  Paul  where  he  declares  that  he  is  a 
slave  to  it ;  and  yet  he  submits  to  sin  sufficiently  to  increase 
its  power,  and  to  grow  in  "opposition  to  (the)  law  (of  the 
Almighty)."  "For  as  ye  gave  over  your  members  as  slaves  ta 
uncleanness,  and  to  opposition  to  law  unto  still  greater  opposition 
to  law,  so  now''  It  is  really  hard  to  keep  up  with  Paul  in  the 
way  he  packs  his  ideas.  Not  only  is  the  Christian  a  slave  to 
righteousness,  sweet  as  that  mistress  is,  but  he  has  to  be  stirred 
up  to  induce  him  at  all  to  submit  to  bondage.  Indeed  this  is 
God's  great  method  to  coerce  his  "slaves."  Such  is  the  curse 
of  sin  that,  though  its  victim  is  free  to  be  righteous,  and 
though,  what  is  more  touching  yet,  he  is  a  slave  to  uncleanness, 
and  a  thousand  times  struggles  and  resists  his  bondage,  yet 
Paul  can  even  taunt  him  with  his  utter  want  of  will  : — Where 


CHAPTER   VI.  197 

did  you  ever  gain  any  thing  against  the  enemy  ?  "  What  fruit 
did  ye  ei'er  have  of  those  things  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed]  " 
But  here,  in  the  depths  of  his  own  forlorn  bondage,  the 
Christian  gains  something.  He  is  but  a  "  slave  to  righteousness,'* 
and  yet  has  the  dim  beginning  of  life,  and,  therefore,  the  faint 
upheaval  of  a  better  will.  This  is  all  that  he  has  received  of 
ransom,  and  all  that  he  has  yet  achieved  of  his  eternal  livint,^ 
This  saves  him.  Paul  calls  it  his  ''fruit  unto  sanctification** 
(v.  22),  and  expounds  it  carefully.  The  sinner,  however 
unwillingly  (see  next  chapter),  gives  over  his  members  as 
slaves  to  uncleanness,  with  the  result  of  constantly  increasing 
uncleanness,  and  the  saint,  however  churlishly,  gives  over  his 
members  as  slaves  to  righteousness,  with  the  result  of  con- 
stantly increasing  righteousness,  the  indulgence  in  ''sin'' 
ending  in  **  death,"  and  the  struggle  for  "  righteousness  "  ending 
in  ''life  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."  "  Sanetifeation"  {Re.), 
therefore,  is  the  very  hinge  of  the  sentence.  King  James 
ought  not  to  have  said  "holiness"  (E.  V.),  and  it  is  almost 
unpardonable  in  the  nineteenth  verse.  'A^iaaiidq  never  means 
holiness,*  but  that  rising  out  of  sin  which  is  the  gift  of  the 
Redeemer.  It  is  bad  enough  to  say,  "  Ye  have  your  fruit  unto 
holiness;"  but  it  quite  dislocates  the  thought  in  the  verse  I 
mention.  There  "  unto  sanctification  "  (Re.)  balances  the  sen- 
tence u7ito further  lawlessness.  But  "  righteousness  unto  holiness  " 
(E.  V.)  is  miserable  ;  where  is  the  difference  ?  As  the  slave 
of  sin  repines  over  it,  but  indulges  it  unto  further  wickedness, 
so  the  slave  to  righteousness  writhes  under  it  in  horrid  cruci- 
fixion and  pain,  nevertheless  in  churlish  feebleness  obeys,  and 
by  that  feeble  stirring  of  the  Spirit  gathers  strength  and  passes 


*  It  occurs  but  ten  times  in  N.  T.  Greek.  Five  of  those  times  (i  Cor. 
I  :  30  ;  I  Thcss  4  :  3.  4  ;  2  Thess.  2:13;  i  ^et.  i  :  2)  it  is  translated 
''sanctification  "  (E.  V.),  and  ''sanctification  "  (E.  V.)  nowhere  else  occurs. 
The  other  five  times  it  is  translated  "  holiness  "  (E.  V.).  and  always  unhap- 
pily  (6  :  ig.  22  ;  i  Thess.  4  :  7  ;  i  Tim.  2:15:  Heb.  12  :  14),  especially 
in  Heb.  12  :  14,  where  it  is  much  more  appropriate  to  say,  "  santtific  tion, 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord." 


198  ROMANS. 

through  that  great  wonder-work  of  Calvary,  his  ''being  made 
righteous,''  or  his  ''  sanctification.*' 


CHAPTER    VII. 

1.  Or  are  ye  ignorant,  brethren  (for  I  speak  to  persons 
knowing  law),  that  the  law,  rules  its  human  subject  as 
long  as  he  lives. 

The  "or"  (Re.),  which  our  English  Version  treats  as  an 
interrogative,  and  therefore,  determines  to  remove,  is  not  only 
significant,  but  really  has  a  very  wide  significance  on  the  part 
of  the  apostle.     It  swings  him  back  into  the  previous  chapter. 
For  closeness  of  reasoning  he  had  taken  one  thing  for  granted, 
and   now  he    resumes   it,    that  very  peculiar  thing,   that    sin 
breeds  sin,  or,  to  express  it  in  legal  phrase,  that  "the  law," 
as  its  very  chiefest  threatening,  gives  us  over  to  sin,  or  makes 
its  ''wages  death''  (see  last  verse);  "Or,  are  ye  ignorant" 
(Re.)  he  says  ("for  I  speak  to"  Romans,  "persons"  who 
of  all  others  on  the  earth  pride  themselves  in  understanding 
"  law  "  ),  "  that  the  law  rules  its  human  subject  as  long  as 
he  lives?"     This  alternative  chance,  viz.,  that  they  did  not 
know,  warrants  him  in  going  back  and  speaking  in  more  ful- 
ness.    The  like  use  of  "^r"  occurs  in  the  previous  chapter 
(v.  3).     "  The  law  rules  its  human  subject  as  long  as  it  lives,'* 
we  were  disposed  to  say.     The  Greek  admits  the  "  it,"  and 
the  after  verses  might  seem  to  demand  it.     We  have  already 
seen,  however,  how  Paul  might  not  like  to  say  that  the  law 
was  dead.     "Do  we  then  bring  law  to  nothing  ?  "   he  had   in- 
quired (3  :  31),  "nay,  but  we  establish  law."      We  will  see   how 
he  manages  this   under  the  coming   metaphor.      Meanwhile 
"its  hufnan  subject,"  a  rendering  that  may  seem  forlorn,  is  put 
instead   of   the    racier   Saxon,  simply  "  w^;/ "  (E.  V.  &  Re.), 
to  avoid   excluding  the  "  woman,"  who  is  really  the   point  of 
the  figure,  and  to  distinguish  avBp^TToc;  (v.  i)  from  avr/p  (vs.  2,  3), 
avOpuTToc  being  not  necessarily  of  any  sex,  and  avrjp  representing 
the  law,  and  being  he  as  to  whom  the  woman  dying,  "has 
Jyeen  brought  to  nothi?ig  as  to  the  law  "  of  her  husband. 


CHAPTER   VII.  199 

2.  For  the  woman  who  is  under  marriage  to  a  man  haa 
"been  bound  to  the  living  man  as  law ;  but  if  the  man  die, 
she  has  been  brought  to  nothing  as  to  the  law  of  the  man. 

It  is  impossible  to  translate  very  literally.  Paul  evidently 
wishes  to  mould  the  sentence  and  thereby  to  shape  the  meta- 
phor for  the  service  of  his  thought.  That  we  died  (6  :  2)  the 
moment  we  were  converted,  means  any  thing  rather  than  that 
the  law  died.  In  the  sacrifice  and  cruel  death  the  law  triumphed, 
and  through  eternity  one  jot  of  it  shall  not  pass.  And  yet  the 
figure  of  the  wife  seemed  to  demand  that  the  law  should  be 
the  husband,  and  that  to  set  the  sinner  free  the  law  should 
die.  The  apostle,  in  order  to  avoid  that,  shapes  the  allegory. 
Instead  of  pointing  to  the  husband's  death,  he  speaks  of  the 
wife,  and  he  robs  us  of  English  clearness  by  using  a  verb 
which  is  a  favorite  in  his  epistles.  It  literally  means  to  make 
a  man  idle.  It  comes  from  the  words  a  and  ipy(yv,  which  would 
signify  without  work.  It  is  translated  (E.  V.)  with  vast  variety 
(Lu.  13  :  7  ;  Rom.  6:6;  Eph.  2  :  15);  often  to  ?nake  void, 
(Rom.  3  :  31),  or  to  destroy  (Rom.  6  :  6),  or  to  bring  to  naii;^ht 
(i  Cor.  I  :  28),  or  to  make  of  iione  effect  (Rom.  3:3).  It  is 
translated  just  below,  "  We  are  delivered  from  the  law  "  (E.  V.). 
We  might  say,  "  Made  dead  from  the  law  of  the  fnan-^  "  but  that 
would  clash  with  the  more  literal  expression  (v.  4).  Paul 
evidently  would  say,  If  the  husband  dies,  the  woman  dies, 
that  is,  to  all  law  to  that  husband,  and,  therefore,  we  write, 
"  brought  to  nothing,"  as  the  nearest  English  we  can  think 
of.  Below  we  shall  say,  ''brought  to  nothing  in  respect  to  law^ 
having  died  to  that  in  which  we  were  held''  (v.  6).  It  is  the 
nearest  to  the  Apostle's  imagery.  The  law  is  infinitely  far 
from  dead,  but  we  are  dead  to  it.  The  husband  was  indeed 
dead,  but  Paul's  illustration  was,  so  was  the  wife.  As  to  any 
claim  of  law,  she  was  dead.  And  what  a  terrible  claim  the 
saint  has  died  to  if  he  repents,  we  read  of  further  (vs.  8-10)  in 
this  same  chapter. 

3.  Then,  therefore,  the  man  living,  she  shall  be  called  an 
adulteress  if  she  become  another  man's  ;  but,  if  the  man  die 
she  is  free  from  the  law,  so  as  that  the  same  woman  is  no 


200  ROMANS. 

adulteress  though  becoming  another  man's.  4.  So  like- 
wise ye,  my  brethren,  were  made  dead  to  the  law  by  the 
body  of  Christ,  that  ye  should  belong  to  another,  even  to 
Him  who  was  raised  from  among  the  dead,  that  we  might 
bring  forth  fruit  unto  God. 

4.  "So."  It  is  that  word  Karapyeu  that  has  shaped  the  figure 
in  the  aim  to  convey  the  reasoning.  The  woman  has  been 
*^  brought  to  naught.''  The  whole  system  under  which  she  Hved 
has  been  broken  up.  So  of  the  believer.  The  law  is  not  dead, 
but  gloriously  triumphs.  But  he  is  dead.  He  has  been  "made 
dead  to  the  law."  And  though  it  takes  hold  of  him  with 
vital  warmth  for  the  first  time  in  his  history,  yet  it  is  dead  as 
to  its  claim.  "  The  handwriting  that  was  against  him  "  has 
been  taken  out  of  the  way  ;  and  that  handwriting,  strange  to 
say,  plunged  him  in  sinfulness.  Here  now  comes  the  strong 
part  of  the  chapter.  The  splendor  of  being  dead  to  law  is 
that  it  ceases  to  make  us  sinful  ;  and  just  how  it  does  so  Paul 
goes  on  to  explain,  with  singular  boldness  of  speech,  and  yet 
with  singular  guard  upon  so  dangerous  an  argumentation. 

5.  "For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh."  Now  just  there  let 
us  pause  to  link  this  sentence  with  the  other.  The  other  had 
the  expression,  "  body  of  Christ."  It  is  too  obvious  to  be 
told  that  ''flesh  "  in  the  present  sentence,  and  ''body"  in  the 
other,  are  not  literally  what  they  seem.  "Flesh"  in  the 
writings  of  Paul  includes  a  thousand  tastes  that  are  mental 
and  refined,  and  sweeps  in  the  whole  man  outside  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  The  "  ^^^  ^/ C^r/j-/ "  means  similarly.  It  is  all  of 
Him  except  His  Godhead.  It  is  all  of  Him,  just  as  in 
the  instance  of  His  people,  except  that,  in  their  case,  we 
keep  out  of  the  word  their  enlightened  spiritual  part,  and 
in  His  case,  that  same  part  as  seat  and  throne  of  His  abso- 
lute Kingship  and  Deity.  When  He  says,  "  My  flesh  is  meat 
indeed,"  He  means  infinitely  far  from  the  carbon  and  nitrogen 
of  His  frame,  but  His  whole  man's  being  as  sacrificed  for  sin. 
Its  very  carnality,  in  a  reverent  sense,  was  the  secret  of  His 
torment.  When  He  said,  "  The  Spirit  truly  is  willing,  but  the 
flesh  is  weak,"  He  indicated  the  office  of  the  "body"  in  His 


CHAPTER   VI L  201 

torment.  It  was  not  the  crude  muscle  ;  else  He  could  have 
borne  it.  It  was  the  whole  weak  man  outside  of  the  Spirit  of 
His  (jodhead.  We  are  saved  by  grace,  and  we  are  saved  by 
God,  and  the  God -facts  in  the  case  make  Him  our  hope,  and 
our  sole  dependence  for  our  being  made  better.  But  we  are 
saved  by  ''flesh:*  Without  ''flesh  "  we  could  have  no  redemp- 
tion. All  of  Christ  outside  of  His  Spirit  could  be  tempted, 
which  God  never  could  ;  and  through  temptation  could  be 
tortured  ;  and  through  His  torture  could  be  a  sacrifice  ;  and 
through  the  sacrifice  could  assert  a  price  in  it  as  of  God  ;  all 
of  which  He  could  not  do  as  God  ;  and  all  of  which  explains 
the  language  of  our  text.  We  are  "  (sanctified)  by  His  blood  " 
(Heb.  13  :  12).  It  is  in  these  lights  that  we  are  to  "  (discern) 
the  Lord's  body  "  (i  Cor.  1 1  :  29).  His  "  fiesh  is  meat  indeed." 
And  so  in  this  present  epistle,  "  We  are  ?nade  dead  to  the  law 
by  the  body  of  Christ." 

**  Who  was  raised  from  among  the  dead."  Paul  keeps 
constantly  in  view  that  being  "  dead  to  the  law  "  releases  a  man 
from  sinfulness.  We  always  are  dreaming  differently.  The 
grief  that  fills  our  eye  is  guilt.  The  grief  that  fills  Paul's  eye 
is  sin.  This  is  a  flaw  among  the  Reformed.  The  great  fact 
in  this  epistle  is  that  to  save  us  is  to  make  us  righteous,  and 
to  damn  us  is  to  leave  us  wicked  ;  and,  therefore,  we  mar  the 
great  word  out  of  the  Greek  {mahe  righteous) ^  when  we  give  it 
a  forensic  cast.  Paul  says  "  dead  to  the  law"  and  means  by 
that  chiefly  "  dead"  to  that  claim  which  gives  us  over  to  wicked- 
ness. We  see  his  intensity  of  thought  by  the  immediate 
rebound  :  dead  to  law,  that  we  may  live  (Gal.  2:19^;  dead  to 
the  old  husband,  that  we  may  bring  forth  to  another  (v.  4)  ; 
dead  to  sin,  that  we  may  live  to  God  (6  :  11).  And  here  he 
rivets  the  sentence  by  drawing  Christ  into  the  scene.  He 
never  sinned,  but  was  tempted  to.  He  never  yielded,  but  died 
ten  thousand  deaths  as  against  the  "  infirmities  "  that  "  com- 
passed him  about."  And  while,  if  you  look  at  all  the  com- 
mentaries, they  will  tell  you  that  this  rising  "from  among  the 
dead"  was  from  the  rock  in  the  Garden,  the  whole  passage 
shows  that  it  means  morally,  not  out  of  actual  sin  like  us,  but 


202  ROMANS. 

out  of  awful  "  death  "  (6  :  3),  that  horrible  **  infirmity'*  which 
His  Godhead  enabled  Him  to  fight,  till  He  was  made  "  perfect 
by  sufferings." 

5.  For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh  the  sufiferings  of  the 
sins  which  were  by  the  law  were  made  active  in  our  mem- 
bers to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death.  6.  But  now  we  have 
been  brought  to  nothing  as  to  the  law,  having  died  as  to 
that  in  which  we  were  held,  that  we  might  serve  in  new- 
ness of  spirit,  and  not  in  oldness  of  letter. 

This  is  to  provoke  the  next  cavil,   and  we  see  at   a  glance 
how  strong  it  is.     It  says,  almost  in  terms,  that  the  law  makes 
sins.     And   yet,  like  the  sun,  it  only  shines  down.     If  a  man 
sins,  he  is  not  stopped  in  his  accursed  being.     He  lives  on. 
That  is  the  first  point.     And  how  could  it  be  otherwise  ?     But 
if  he  continues  to  sin,  will   sin  breed   holiness?     Would   that 
agree  with  any  other   system  ?     Nay,  must  not  sin  breed  sin, 
and  each  act  of  trespass  make  a  man  worse  ?     Does  not  that 
agree  with  all  the  analogies  of  nature  ?     Then,   in   legal   lan- 
guage, all  that  Paul  has  asserted  is  the  result.     Christ  super- 
vened  upon  a  stem  of  wickedness  to   graft  Himself  upon  the 
root.     "  For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh ;  "  that  is,  when  we 
had  but  a  modicum  of   Spirit,  answering  to  our  common   con- 
science, which  even  the  devils  have,  and  which  is  slowly  wear- 
ing itself  away — "  the  sufferings  of  the  sins  " — we  have  seen 
how  Christ  suffered.      It  is  a  fine  stroke  in  Paul  to  talk  of 
sins  sufferings y     Christ's  agonies  were  His  temptations  into 
sin.     But  Paul  speaks  at  the   close  of  the  chapter  (vs.  14,  24) 
of  the   agonies   of   every  man.     But  these  verses  he  brings  in 
first.     *'  The  sufferings  of  the  si?is  which  were  by  the  law.''    How 
natural   the   immediate   challenge,  "Is  the  law  sin?"  (v.  7). 
Paul,    under    that,    is    to    bring    out   most    startling  verities 
(vs.  8-1 1 ).    "  The  sufferings  of  the  sins  which  were  by  the  law  :  " 
"  Sins^''  therefore  (past  all  duplicity  of  speech),  to  which  Paul 
means  to  say  that   '^  the  law"  gave,  us  over.     "Were  made 
active  in  our  members."       As   in   many  another   phase   of 
anthropology,  the  bearing  of  the  law  upon  sin  is  in  two   par- 
ticulars.    We  can  illustrate  it  as  in  the  work  of  Christ.     Christ 


CHAPTER   VII.  203 

saves  us  in  two  particulars.  He  saves  us  in  court  by  ransom. 
He  saves  us  in  our  souls  themselves  by  a  bleSt  enrighteousment. 
So,  correspondingly,  in  respect  to  sin,  it  is  incurable  in  two 
ways,  though  one  is  the  consecjuence  of  the  other.  It  is  incura- 
ble in  court,  because  the  curse  was  '^  death,"  and  it  is  incura- 
ble as  a  disease,  in  the  way  that  we  call  helplessness.  Now, 
the  law,  as  the  occasion  of  sin,  is  in  like  forms  dual,  (i)  One 
of  these  forms  he  has  considered  ;  but  now  (2)  Paul  approaches 
the  other  (see  below  vs.  7,  8).  The  law  occasions  sin  (i)  by 
actually  punishing  with  it  as  a  curse.  That  Paul  has  never 
doubted.  He  has  said  boldly,  "  The  wages  of  sin  is  death.*' 
He  is  to  declare  to  the  Corinthians,  "  The  strength  of  sin  is 
the  law."  And  he  has  pictured  our  death  to  the  law  as  mean- 
ing that  we  are  '^  alive  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord** 
Now  he  is  provoking  another  challenge.  "  Made  active'*  This 
is  a  favorite  passive  (2  Cor.  4:12;  Eph.  3  :  20  ;  Col.  i  :  29). 
Our  version  loses  its  force  in  that  respect.  In  that  important 
clause,  "  Faith  made  active  by  love  "  (Gal.  5  :  6),  blinking  the 
passive  ruins  everything. 

Let  us  pause  a  moment  upon  this.  If  I  say,  "  worketh  by  love" 
(  E.  v.,  see  also  Re.),  I  afford  a  text  which  has  been  propping 
a  dangerous  error.  But  if  I  say,  "  made  active  by  love,"  I 
put  the  love  directly  into  the  faith,  and  I  bring  out  that  which 
afforded  the  ancient  definition  that  ''fides  formata  '*  has  its 
differe?itia  in  charity.  It  is  the  pest  of  Protestantism  that  faith 
should  be  thought  saving  if  it  be  mere  dependence  ;  and  it 
has  come  to  pervade  our  church,  and  to  loosen  society,  and 
(what  casts  shame  upon  Christ)  to  illuminate  our  jails  and  our 
gibbets, — that  a  man  can  get  to  Heaven  by  understanding  the 
gospel,  that  is  by  having  cut  from  it  (it  may  be  on  the  night 
preceding  his  execution)  all  thought  of  the  necessity  of  re- 
pentance, and  that  he  be  told,  that  if  he  will  cling  to  Christ  on  a 
personal  understanding  of  His  sacrifice,  he  will  certainly  be 
admitted  to  paradise.  The  verb  means  *'to  work,  to  do,  to  be 
tf^//zr,  especially  of  mental  activity,  Aorist "  (Liddell).  The 
middle  is  not  to  be  taken  for  granted  ;  and  the  passive  can 
not  mean  to  **«/6?r^."     When  Paul  speaks  of  "comfort  made 


204  .  ROMANS. 

active  in  enduring  "  (2  Cor.  i  :  6),  he  utters  something  much 
more  clean-cut  than  "  comfort  that  works  in  enduring."  And 
so,  "  made  active  by  love  "  puts  the  whole  doctrine  of  faith 
into  the  exactest  condition  for  the  people.  It  must  be  a  faith 
that  has  love  in  it,  just  as  the  atmosphere  must  have  oxygen 
in  it.  And  to  put  the  faith  first  and  love  afterward,  is  to 
t(^mpt  the  sinner  to  have  the  faith  and  never  get  the  love,  for 
as  Jeremy  Taylor  urges,  if  we  are  justified  by  faith,  and,  once 
justified,  must  alway  persevere,  what  is  to  keep  the  sinner  from 
launching  upon  the  Christ,  and  failing  afterward  in  the 
imagined  consequence  ?  We  are  "  tnade  righteous  by  faith  " 
(Gal.  2  :  16).  It  is  "  7'eckoned  {to  us)  as  righteousjiess  "  (4  :  5, 
9).  It  is  that  ^^from''  which  the  '^  righteousness  of  God  is  7nan- 
ifested''  (i  :  17).  That  is,  the  excellence  of  God  must  be  re- 
flected in  our  souls  (and  what  is  that  but  love  ?)  before  it  can 
be  handed  on  in  a  living  way  '■''from  faith  to  faith  "  ;  because 
"///^  righteous  man  must  live  out  of  his  faith"  (i  :  17):  faith 
must  be  the  dawning  of  his  life.  And  what  does  all  this  mean 
but  that  faith  must  be  moral  in  its  visions  ;  must  in  fact  be  a 
moral  illumination,  with  a  morally  illuminated  Christ ;  very 
graphically,  therefore,  must  be  "  made  active  by  love  ";  and  very 
manifestly,  therefore,  does  not  belong  to  the  felon,  unless 
over  night  in  his  prison  his  "heart  (has  been)  opened  "  (Acts. 
16  :  14),  he  has  "  received  the  love  of  the  truth  "  (2  Thess.  2  : 
10),  he  has  been  regenerated  in  answer  to  prayer,  and  his 
whole  moral  being  reached  by  being  born  again  "  (Jo.  3  :  3, 
E.  V.)  into  a  new  sight  of  sin  (Job.  42  :  6)  and  a  moral  view 
of  the  loveliness  of  his  Redeemer  ?  All  this  is  meant  by  *'  made 
active  by  love." 

We  understand  easily,  therefore,  the  present  expression, 
''were  juade  active  in  our  members ''  "To  bring  forth  fruit 
unto  death."  ''Sins  which  laere  by  the  law,''  that  is,  to  which 
"the  law''  gave  us  over,  "were  made  active  in  our  i7ie7nbers^* 
and,  as  a  consequence  of  every  indulgence,  made  things  worse 
— as  Paul  expresses  it,  fed  "death,''  that  is,  bore  fruit  to  the 
increase  of  those  shocking  "wages"  which  Paul  calls  "death." 
"  But  now,"  having  died  with  Christ,  that  is  having  death 


CHAPTER   VII.  205 

actually  paid  clown  and  exhausted,  which  we,  except  in  the  God- 
man,  could  not  have  done,  "we  are  brought  to  nothing  as 
to  ((in-o)  the  law,  having  died  to  that  in  which  we  were  held." 
It  was  the  husband  that  died,  but  the  law  was  too  vigorous 
to  be  subjected  to  such  an  emblem.  Paul,  therefore,  remem- 
bers that  the  wife  also  was  emptied  out  or  made  idle  from  the 
law  of  her  husband  ;  and  this  is  the  phase  he  would  press. 
*'  We  are  brought  to  nothing  as  to  law,"  that  is,  cursed  with  sin 
by  it  no  longer.  And  the  cause  was  in  Christ,  "  having  died 
(with  Him)  to  that  in  which  we  luere  //^/^ "— that  we  might 
begin  to  cease  from  sin — that  is,  "  that  we  might  serve  in  ne^vness 
of  spirit,  and  not  in  oldness  of  letter."  Paul  ends  with  this. 
And  we  see  in  what  compact  shape  he  wedges  in  at  the  last  a 
new  idea.  Not  only  have  we  "  died  to  sin,"  but  we  have  died 
to  that  form  of  the  curse  which  gives  us  over  to  hypocritical 
sinning.  Paul  has  discussed  this  in  another  chapter.  "  JVot 
one  who  is  so  in  what  is  apparent,  is  a  Jew,  nor  is  that  which  is 
so  in  what  is  apparent  in  the  flesh,  circumcision"  (2  :  28).  Paul 
leaves  the  subject  so  that  our  modern  idolisms  are  equally 
put  out  of  the  way.  *'  One  who  is  so  in  what  is  hidden  is  a  Jew.'* 
He  goes  at  once  to  the  seat  in  moral  affections  ;  and  then  he 
uses  an  expression  which  applies  to  this  day  as  well  as  to 
Paul's.  *'  Circumcision  is  of  the  heart ;  in  spirit,  not  in  letter.'* 
The  true  ''circumcision"  of  the  soul,  that  is,  conversion,  is  to 
be  complied  with  not  simply  in  the  "  letter."  "  If  ye  be  cir- 
cumcised ;  "  that  is,  if  ye  be  only  circumcised  in  the  outward 
or  literal  way,  "Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing."  And  so  in 
our  day,  if  a  man  only  believes,  that  is,  reads  the  "  letter  "  of 
the  truth  and  believes  it,  and  rests  his  soul  upon  it  ;  if  that  is 
all ;  if  he  really  leans  upon  Christ  and  clings  to  Him,  and  his 
clinging  is  personal  and  singularly  exclusive,  so  that  he  is 
trusting  to  nothing  but  a  personal  Redeemer,  still,  if  all  he  has 
reached  is  the  letter  ;  if  he  understands  soteriology  perfectly ; 
if  his  view  is  complete  of  a  personal  sacrifice,  in  all  respects 
but  ''what  is  hidden  "  (2  :  29),  still  if  he  does  not  know  Christ, 
I  mean  in  His  loveliness,  and  if  he  does  not  hate  sin,  except 
in  its  dangerousness,  he  is  no  believer.     How  absurd  to  get  to 


2o6  ROMANS. 

Heaven  by  mere  believing  things  !  The  expert  theorist  and 
the  sharp  mind,  best  capable  of  understanding  the  "  letter," 
would  be  most  convertible,  and  the  reality  is  often  the  other 
way.  Faith  may  be  dim  in  the  "/^//<?r,"  if  it  be  warm  in  the 
^^  spirit y  And  that  now  is  the  meaning  of  our  text.  The 
'■^  laiL\''  if  it  withdraw  its  curse,  delivers  us  over  to  a  genuine 
conversion,  which  may  be  very  weak,  beginning  only  in  a  bud- 
ding and  imperfect  faith,  but  it  will  be  a  genuine  faith,  pos- 
sessed by  the  new-born  Christian,  and  not  by  the  idolatrous 
Israelite  ;  and  therefore  answering  to  the  language,  "  that  we 
may  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  oldness  of  letter'* 

7.  What  shall  we  say  then?  Is  the  law  sin?  By  no 
means.  On  the  contrary,  I  had  not  known  the  sin  but  by 
law ;  for,  indeed,  I  had  not  understood  the  desire  except 
the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not  desire. 

Paul  had  pushed  his  idea  to  the  very  verge  of  a  mistake,  and 
now,  to  clear  his  reasoning,  he  states  what  that  mistake  would 
be.  He  has  allowed  it  to  escape  him  that  "  sins  "  are  "by  the 
law"  (v.  5).  And,  hence,  to  shield  that  which  may  easily  be 
turned  astray,  he  writes  the  quick  question,  "What  shall  we 
say  then?  Is  the  law  sin?"  and  then  brings  forward  the 
second  (2)  of  the  two  forms  in  which  law  becomes  the  "start" 
of  iniquity  (see  also  next  verse).  That  form  we  must  be  very 
particular  in  describing.  Not  only  does  the  law  breed  "  si7i  '* 
by  inflicting  it  as  a  penalty  (and  by  this  we  must  be  understood 
as  meaning,  abandoning  the  sinner  to  his  sinfulness),  but  it 
breeds  it  in  this  way, — that  "  I  had  not  known  the  sin  but  by 
law,"  on  an  expounding  of  which  depends  this  whole  passage. 
It  does  not  mean  that  unless  Sinai  had  spoken,  and  that  in  the 
Jewish  sense,  we  could  not  sin.  That  we  have  already  denied 
(5  :  13).  It  does  not  mean  that  unless  our  parents  had 
taught  us,  or  the  letter  had  in  some  way  been  read  of  moral 
commandments,  we  could  not  transgress,  for  that  again  would 
be  extreme  ;  all  men  have  natural  conscience  (see  i  :  20). 
But  the  key  is  this  conscience  itself.  Without  law  there  can 
be  no  transgression.  This  we  must  press  a  Voutrance.  Some 
goodness  is  needed  for  any  sin.     And  to  hold  so  perilous  a 


CHAPTER   VII.  207 

position,  let  me  advance  to  the  very  edge.     The  devil  cannot 
be  impeached  unless  upon  a  basis  of  conscience.     If  he  merely 
knows  moral  distinctions,  as  Paul  would  word  it,  "  ///  the  letter,'' 
that  arch  fiend  may  have  traditions  of  sin,  but  cannot  sin.    He 
may  hear  that  he   is  sinning,  but  that   is   not   sufficient.      He 
must  feel  sin  ;   that   is,  he   must   have  wrecks  of   conscience  ; 
and   as  conscience   eternally  decays,  it  keeps  him  at  the  top 
of  the  list  as  a  never-ceasing  transgressor.     This  is  plainly 
Paul's   doctrine   (3:   20;  4:   15).     And    now  he   applies  it  in 
our  texts.     "/  had  not  known  sin  but  by  the  liuu.'*     That  is,  I 
could  not  possibly  sin  without  a  conscience.     This  conscience 
must  have  its  knowledge  too.     "  I  had  not  understood  the 
desire,  unless  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  desire." 
A  new-born  infant  has  conscience,  but  what  light  can  it  show  ? 
Some  teaching  comes  with  every  condition.     The  whole  mul- 
titude at  the  bar  will  hear  one  sentence,  "  Out  of  thine  own 
mouth  will  I  judge  thee"  (Lu.  19  :   22).     And  this  teaches  the 
second  (2)  form  (see  Com.  v.   5),  in  which  law  begets  iniquity. 
We  must  notice,  in  passing,  two  varieties  of  speech.     Paul 
says  in  the  first  clause,  "  Az?*.',"  and  in  the  second  clause,  ''the 
law,'*  and  we  have  already  virtually  explained  it.     ''I  had  not 
known  the  sin  but  by  law  ;  "  that  is  by  law  oecumenical,  that  law 
which  all  men  possess.     Again,  '*/  had  not  understood  the  desire 
unless  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  desire."    Nor  can  we  ex- 
plain this  quite  as  well  as  when  we  have  considered   another 
distinction.     He  says  in  the  first  clause  ''known''  and  in  the 
second  clause  "understood."    We  learn  from  Liddell  that  there 
is  a  real  difference.    T/vwa/cw  means   to  know  a  thing  (direct), 
and  o\6a  means  to  know   (something)   about   a  thing.      Paul 
marks  this  difference.      We  know  '*  sin  "  much  more  directly 
than    we    know    that    "desire"    is    "sin."      Indeed    "sin"    is 
"sin"    in    esse,  but    "desire"  is  "sin  "  only  because  it  acts  out 
or  exercises  its  7i'ant  of  something  better.     To  understand  about 
desire  is  necessary,  for  some  law  must  tell  us  "Thou  shalt  not 
desire."     And,  therefore,  it  is   wrong   to  vary   the   expression 
and  say  "lust"  (E.  V.),  and   particularly  wrong  to  vary ///<// 
subsequently,  and   say  "  eoi'et"  (E.  V.).     The  wrong  thing  in 


2o8  ROMANS. 

the  sinner  is  to  want  love.  That  Paul  everywhere  teaches 
(13  :  8,  10  ;  I  Cor.  13).  Loves  of  other  sorts,  though  they  be 
of  the  most  refined,  are  wicked,  because  they  indulge  and 
practically  exercise  this  deficiency.  The  devil,  who  has  prac- 
tically some  love  left,  or  is  unready  at  least  for  some  measures 
of  deficiency,  "  knows  "  what  deficiency  is,  for  he  has  to  strug- 
gle and  resist  measures  of  it  which  are  still  enticing  him.  And 
he  understands  about  "  desire^''  for  he  knows  that  it  is  innocent 
in  itself,  and  that  in  Gabriel  or  himself  a  ^^  desire''  of  power  is 
only  circumstantially  and  consequentially  a  wickedness.  It 
spoils  things  to  say,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet^''  for  both  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Greek  (Ex.  20  :  17)  have  the  same  more  inno- 
cent expression.  The  force  of  the  passage  is  seen  in  this  very 
innocence.  Paul  simply  quotes  the  LXX,  and  implies  that  men 
would  have  been  slow  to  tmderstand,  unless  the  decalogue  had 
made  them  familiar  with  so  simple  and  harmless  an  apparition. 

8.  But  sin,  taking  a  start  through  the  commandment, 
achieved  in  me  all  desire ;   for  without  law  sin  is  dead. 

Here  it  is  again!  "law"  instead  of  ''the  law''  (E.  V.  & 
Re.).  Paul's  speech  is  the  strictest  possible.  To  sdij  ^^  the  law** 
and  to  imagine  the  commandments  given  to  Israel,  is  to  wreck 
all  law  and  all  possible  morality,  Paul  is  trampling  that  very 
thing.  Men  sin  back  to  Eden.  But  no  law,  no  transgression. 
Therefore  men  had  a  law  ;  and  that  law  in  its  root  was  con- 
science. Ten  thousand  Sinais  could  make  no  law  without  it. 
And  this  Paul  is  seizing  upon.  "  Sin,  taking  a  start  through 
the  commandment."  This  word  haunts  all  philosophies 
{a(pofj/i7/v,  a  starting  point :  it  is  not  any  common  word,  *'  occasion,'* 
E.  V.  &  Re.,  as  in  Gen.  43  :  18).  Men,  worrying  over  the  abstruse- 
nesses  of  Ethics,  like  to  say  that  benevolence  starts  us  ;  or,  puz- 
zled with  psychology,  admit  that  there  occur  deeper  develop- 
ments, but  that  sensation  is  the  "  start."  Paul  presses  the  idea 
that  if  there  be  no  conscience,  there  can  be  no  sin  ;  that  sin^ 
therefore,  takes  its  "  start "  from  conscience  ;  that  conscience  is 
the  necessary  and  deepest  inscription  of  "  law  ";  that  on  a  capa- 
city that  conscience  gives,  sin  achieves  the  wickedness  of  its 


CHAPTER   VII. 


209 


desires  ;  and  that,  come  what  will  in  the  way  of  consequence,' 
the  very  thing  by  which  we  know  sin,  viz.,  conscience,  is 
necessary  to  its  being  committed  ;  for,  boldest  of  all,  unless  a 
man  have  law,  and  that  not  in  the  letter  only  but  in  the  spirit  so 
far  as  concerns  a  common  sj^irit  or  a  moral  sense,  he  cannot 
commit  iniquity,  or,  as  the  apostle  expresses  it,  "sin  is  dead.'* 

9.  And  I  had  been  alive  without  the  law  at  any  time; 
but  the  commandment  coming  in,  sin  got  its  life  and  I 
died;  10.  And  the  commandment  which  was  to  be  unto 
life,  was  found  for  me  in  its  very  self  to  be  unto  death. 
11.  For  sin,  taking  a  start  by  the  commandment,  deceived 
me  and  by  it  slew  me.  12.  So  that  the  law  is  holy  and  the 
commandment  holy  and  just  and  good. 

A£  may  be  translated  "and"  when  it  begins  both  of  two 
adversative  sentences.  The  ''but''  of  verse  eighth  answers  for 
verse  ninth  in  their  common  contrariety  to  verse  seventh.  "I 
had  been  alive  without  the  law  at  any  time."  Paul  sweeps 
on  to  another  ending.  Here  he  has  gathered  back  both  influ- 
ences of  law.  (i.)  The  law  curses  me  with  sinfulness.  If  there 
were  no  law,  the  curse  would  be  remitted.  Again,  (2.)  the  law 
curses  me  with  knowledge.  If  there  were  no  law,  I  could  not 
be  a  sinner.  "  /  had  been  alive  without  the  Ia7c>  at  any  time." 
The  word  is  Trore,  and  means  ''once''  (E.  V,  &  Re.)  only  deri- 
vatively  and  with  lesser  claim.  "  But  the  commandment  com- 
ing in;"  that  is,  coming  into  the  case  ;  "the  comiuandment 
coming  in  "  as  a  thing  to  be  considered,  "  sin  got  its  life,  and 
I  died."  In  the  universe  of  God  no  man  perishes  without  a 
conscience.  "The  commandment  which  was  to  be  unto 
life ;  "  and  by  this  is  meant,  that  conscience  is  the  very  rudi- 
ment and  root  of  life  :  "  Was  found  for  me  in  its  very  self  to 
be  ujito  death.  For  sin,  taking  a  start  by  the  command- 
ment" (How  could  sin  set  out  at  all  if  I  had  no  conscience?), 
"deceived  me,  and  by  it  slew  me  "(sin  having  this  advantage, 
that  if  it  enters  but  for  once,  then  the  law  is  on  its  side,  and 
gives  me  over  to  sinfulness).  And  as  law  is  the  very  expres- 
sion of  my  conscience,  and  I  could  not  sin  without  a  con- 
science, and  I  could  not  be  holy  except  in  conscience,  and  the 


2IO  ROMANS. 

only  possibilities  of  Heaven  must  be  in  the  light  to  which  the 
conscience  will  attain,  I  must  end  with  the  apostle's  paradox, 
that  it  is  by  the  commandment  that  (2)  sin  deceives  me,  and 
by  the  law  that  (i)  it  takes  my  spiritual  life,  but  that,  for  all 
that,  I  must  agree  with  the  apostle,  that  conscience  has  no 
fault  but  that  it  is  not  strong  enough,  and  that  the  law  has  no 
fault  but  that  it  has  not  hold  enough  upon  my  being,  but  that 
on  the  contrary,  as  Paul  concludes  it,  "The  law  is  holy  and 
the  commandment  holy  and  just  and  good." 

I  approached  this  rendering  with  fear,  because  no  one  has 
been  found  to  suggest  it,  why,  I  cannot  imagine.  Work  cer- 
tainly means  ''at  any  time''  (Eph.  5  :  29  :  see  Robinson), 
and  other  renderings  are  open  to  doubt  because  of  their  endless 
variety.  "  When  the  co??tmandme?it  ca??ie  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  cannot 
mean  upon  Horeb,  for  that  would  imply  that  men  were 
''a/we"  and  spiritually  safe  and  perfect  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
the  world.  The  flood  then  must  have  swept  men  for  being  in- 
nocent. But  then,  just  as  mad  has  been  another  reading. 
Watts  has  embalmed  it  for  the  use  of  the  church. 
"  I  was  alive  without  the  law, 

And  thought  my  sins  were  dead. 

"  My  hopes  of  Heaven  were  firm  and  bright, 
But,  since  the  precept  came, 
With  a  convincing  power  and  light, 
I  find  how  vile  I  am." 

The  idea  is  that  we  were  alive  in  our  own  imagination.  But 
the  startling  result  would  be  that  when  we  ceased  to  be  alive, 
or  when  by  the  grace  of  the  Almighty,  we  opened  our  eyes,  we 
*'  diedr  We  turn  the  verse  into  utter  absurdity.  Dying  does 
mean  living,  and  that  in  the  near  text  of  the  apostle  (6  :  3,  4), 
but  nothing  of  that  sort  just  now.  "  The  cotnifiandmeiit  ordai?ied 
to  life,  I  foimd  to  be  unto  death  "  (E.  V.)  ;  and  expository  of  this 
form  of  dying  are  some  of  the  strongest  texts  in  the  Bible.  "  Sin 
deceived  me,  and  by  it  slew  me  "  (v.  11).  It  wrought  "death  in 
me  by  that  7vhich  is  good''  (v.  13).  And  then,  to  sum  up  all, 
comes  a  sentence  which  should  have  corrected  all  our  mistakes 
in  respect  to  this  important  passage,—"  For  we  know  that  the 


CHAPTER   VI L  an 

law  is  spiritual^  but  I  am  fleshly^  sold  under  sin  "  (v.  14).  Paul, 
with  very  little  preface,  then  leaps  to  the  conclusion,  ''so  that'* 
(and  his  view  is  less  than  usually  laid  open),  I,  not  having 
**  known  sin  but  by  the  latv,''  and  the  law  furnishing  only  the 
starting  point  for  transgression  ;  its  seat  being  in  the  heart ; 
and  its  voice  the  very  voice  of  the  Almighty  ;  all  worlds 
being  happy  only  by  this  very  law  ;  we  might  as  well  impute 
sin  to  God  as  to  trace  it  to  His  seat  in  the  conscience.  Paul 
has  glanced  through  these  things  enough  to  prompt  us  ;  and, 
meaning  to  make  his  conclusion  the  occasion  for  another 
reply,  he  ends  this  one  more  suddenly  : — ''  So  that  the  law  is 
holy  and  the  commandmefit  holy  and  Just  and  good." 

13.  Did  then  that  which  is  good  become  death  unto  me  ? 
By  no  means  ;  but  that  which  is  sin,  with  the  result  of  its 
appearing  sin,  working  out  in  me  death  through  that  which 
is  good,  with  the  result  that  that  which  is  sin,  through  the 
commandment,  should  become  exceeding  sinful. 

We  cannot  clarify  the  idea  of  Paul.  His  postulates  are  ob- 
vious, (i.)  We  would  not  remain  sinners  but  for  the  law  ;  for 
"  a  wise  son  makes  a  glad  father  "  (Prov.  15  :  20),  and  our  great 
Father,  in  his  love,  would  not  have  a  bad  son  unless  the  very 
key  stone  of  law  were  "  death  "  as  a  punishment  for  transgres- 
sion. And  again,  (2.)  we  could  not  remain  sinners  unless  we 
knew  the  law.  For  unless  conscience  survived,  in  however 
failing  a  condition,  even  Lucifer  could  not  trespass.  "  The 
la7iiis  holy.''  But  even  the  holiness  of  law  is  necessary  to  pos- 
sibility in  sin.  To  kill  a  man  we  must  have  a  man  to  kill. 
And  before  I  can  cry  out,  "  I  have  sinned  against  Heaven  and 
in  Thy  sight,"  I  must  see  the  Heaven  that  1  offend,  and  know 
the  law  that  I  have  broken  by  my  miserable  iniquity. 

The  tallest  sinners  in  the  pit  will  be  the  intelligent  possess- 
ors of  the  gospel. 

14.  For  we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual,  but  I  am 
fleshly,  sold  under  sin. 

All  the  words  for  being,  except  the  most  earthy,  are  derived 
from  breathing.     It  is  so  in  the  Hebrew.     The  word   for  life 


212  ROMANS, 

is  breath.  And  then  there  are  stages  in  the  figure.  Another 
word  is  seized  upon  for  soul.  But  it  is  still  breath.  And  then 
when  a  finer  is  needed,  still  another  vocable  meaning  breath  is 
used  to  signify  spirit.  The  Latin  falls  into  the  same  habit ; 
and  when  we  come  to  the  Greek,  y\)vxr]  {breath'),  when  worn  out 
in  its  more  general  usage  for  the  soul,  needs  some  other  ex- 
pression, and  falls  upon  another  expression  for  breath  (ttvev/m), 
which  means  the  moral  soul,  which  is  strengthened  when  we 
are  converted,  and  which  goes  among  all  mankind  by  the  name 
of  conscience.  Spirit,  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  usually  means 
our  conscience.  It  is  opposed  to  the  *^^esh,"  which  takes  for 
its  meaning  all  the  rest  of  our  nature.  A  man  may  be  an  ex- 
quisite gentleman,  but  the  finest  things  in  his  desires  are  of 
the  *^^eshf"  except  as  they  are  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  When  Paul 
says,  "  There  is  a  psychical  body  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body  " 
(i  Cor.  15  :  44),  his  meaning  is  simple.  He  means  to  say  that  the 
soul  will  dominate  the  earthly  sinner,  and  the  spirit  the 
heavenly  saint.  He  means  to  say  that  the  soul  has  our  natural 
light,  and  the  spirit  our  moral  intelligence  ;  and  though  he  is 
far  from  making  a  duality  of  essence,  any  more  than  of  the 
"  old  man  "  and  the  "  new  man,"  yet  he  carries  it  even  to  the 
body.  We  have  a  soul-body  below,  and  a  spirit-body  (that  is 
one  harmonized  to  obey  the  conscience),  which  is  to  rise  here- 
after into  the  Kingdom  of  the  Father. 

The  apostle  here,  therefore,  is  perfectly  plain.  "The  law 
is  spiritual."  What  is  that  but  meaning  that  the  law  is 
moral  ?  And  as  the  spirit  is  but  the  moral  part  of  man, 
the  law  is  solely  meant  for  it.  "I  am  fleshly."  Paul  is  evi- 
dently speaking  of  his  lost  condition.  For  though  he  says  in 
another  place,  "Are  ye  not  fleshly?"  (i  Cor.  3  :  4),  there  it 
abundantly  appears  of  the  fleshly  remains  of  our  state  by 
nature.  Here  it  is  all  the  other  way.  It  may  not  be  for  a 
moment  doubted  that  Paul  may  think  of  the  dark  remains  of 
his  original  wickedness,  and  when  he  speaks  of  **  e7'i7  (being) 
present  with  (him)"  (v.  21),  he  may  not  put  it  away  from  his 
thought  upon  himself ;  but  that  Paul  is  describing  the  lost 
and,  not  the  saved,  or,  if  one  likes  it  better,  describing  the  "  old 


CHAPTER    I'll.  213 

man  "  apart  from  the  grace  of  salvation,  the  one  clause,  "sold 
under  sin,"  triumphantly  establishes.  This  one  touch  has 
split  the  passage  for  many  an  exegete.  It  has  become  a  favor- 
ite resort  to  understand  a  sinner  for  eight  verses  (vs.  7-14), 
and  a  saint  afterward.  What  a  miserable  recourse  !  Paul 
never  wavers  a  moment.  He  has  spoken  of  the  ''  sufferings  of 
sins"  (v.  5).  Now  he  is  to  unfold  them.  And  leaving  the  ad- 
verse difficulties  to  the  last,  let  us  see  how  finely  he  depicts 
the  impenitent  transgressor. 

15.  For  what  I  work  out  I  do  not  know;  for  not  what 
I  wish  do  I  practice,  but  what  I  hate  that  do  I. 

How  could  anything  be  more  profound  ?  What  is  sin  ?  It 
is  any  emotion,  innocent  in  itself,  which  is  deficient  in  two 
higher  affections.  If  1  love  my  horse,  and  a  sad  neighbor 
needs  my  care,  the  care  of  my  horse  becomes  my  transgres- 
sion. If  I  love  all  innocent  pleasures,  and  am  spurred  by  the 
thought  of  them  to  all  my  enterprise  in  life,  my  whole  life  be- 
comes sin  ;  as  is  the  whole  actual  reality,  if  the  whole  pleasure 
of  life  is  not  crowned  by  a  love  to  the  Almighty.  Sin  is  priva- 
tive, therefore.  How  can  I  "  know  "  privative  deficiency  1 
If  I  knew  sin,  I  would  be  righteous  ;  for  the  same  light  that 
reveals  me  Christ,  reveals  me  wickedness.  The  Bible  is  full 
of  that  thought,  and  it  is  all  summed  up  in  the  phrase,  ''  This 
is  life  eternal, — to  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God  "  (Jo.  17:3). 

But,  then,  these  three  verbs  as  to  doing  (E.  V.)  or  practic- 
ing (Re.)  are  all  different  expressions.  The  first  means  to 
"work  out,"  and  is  applied  to  ''death  "  in  this  epistle  (v.  13). 
The  second  means  to  "  practice,"  and  is  said  by  Liddell  to 
have  to  do  with  habit  in  sin.  The  third  means  to  "do."  Our 
version  has  erred  in  smothering  the  difference. 

We  need  not  be  so  profound,  therefore,  after  this  correction. 
"What  I  work  out  I  know  not."  How  unspeakably  true 
this  must  be.  '*  Godly  sorrow  worketh  repentance"  (2  Cor. 
7  :  10).  '*  Tribulation  worketh  patience  "  (5  :  3).  '*  Freed 
from  sin,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness  "  (6  :  22).  From  the 
very  nature  of  the  change  you  ''  hiow  "  these  things  when  they 


214  ROMANS. 

happen.     But  let  the  change  be  the  other  way,  and  it  settles 
noiselessly.     A  man  may  see  by  his  bloated  cheeks  that  he  is 
becoming  a  drunkard,  but  who,  in  gentler  circles  of  iniquity, 
feels  the  ^^ death''   he   is  working  out.?  (Job  -i*^  \   13;  Jer.  9: 
6).     This  is  the  very  easiest  doctrine.     Men  do  not  hate  God, 
and  they  do  not  love  sin,  I  mean  in  its  strictness  as  moral 
delinquency.     They  do  not  hate  mercy  and  glorious  purity  of 
heart,    and    the    thing    would  be    impossible  ;    and    we    do 
harm  when  we  say  they  do,  for  the  Bible  does  not  say  so,  and 
they  themselves  may  justly  deny  it  in  their  absolute  conscious- 
ness.    The  Bible  is  altogether  more  prudent.     "  The  fleshly 
mind  is  enmity  to  God  "  (8  :  7),  but  it  gives  a  reason,  and  that 
reason  is  roundabout  and  indirect.    "(Men)  hate  light,  neither 
come  to  the  light "  (Jo.  3  :  20),  but  there  is  interposed  at  once 
derivative  reasonings.     A  God  infinitely  perfect  could  no  more 
be  hated  than  a  blue  sky.    And  as  to  benevolence  and  nobility 
of  act,  how  foolish  that  a  man  could   hate  them— except  just 
in  the  sense  of  the  apostle.     ''  The  fleshly  mind  is  enmity  to 
God,  because  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God  "  (8  :  7),  and  man 
"hates  light,  neither  comes  to  the  light,"  as  Christ  altogether 
explains  when  he  adds  the  expression,  'Uest  his  deeds  should  be 
reproved''  (Jo.  3  :   20).    It  is  the  consequences  of  sin  that  men 
are  dreading  when  they  hate  Jehovah. 

And  as  the  Bible  never  says  anything  different  from  this,  we 
may  come  boldly  to  the  language  of  the  apostle.  "  What  I 
work  out  I  do  not  know."  It  would  be  awful  to  me  to  destroy 
the  noblest  part  of  my  creation.  What  I  practice,  therefore,  I 
do  tiot  wish.  This  is  a  common  feeling  with  the  impenitent.  In 
fact  it  is  universal.  "What  I  hate,  that  I  am  doing."  The 
imperial  character  of  conscience,  which,  even  in  the  pit,  beck- 
ons a  soul  back  from  further  death,  makes  sin  a  torment  even 
to  the  wicked  ;  and  thoroughly  realizes  the  next  verse  :— 

10.  But  if  I  do  that  which  I  wish  not,  I  consent  unto  the 
law  that  it  is  good. 

Now,  why  had  I  not  better  bring  on  at  once  the  twenty-second 
verse,    "  /  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man  " 


CHAPTER   VII.  215 

(E.V.)  ?  This  has  done  all  the  mischief.  Men,  entering  upon 
the  study  of  the  passage  with  the  expression  **  sold  under  sin  " 
(v.  14),  have  said  at  once,  it  is  Paul  as  an  impenitent.  Bu: 
coming  to  this,  *' /  delight  in  the  laiu  of  God,''  a  whirlwind  ha- 
sprung  up.  The  attempts  at  harmony  are  curiosities  f(^: 
exegetes.  The  Greeks  said  it  was  a  sinner.  The  moderns 
preponderate  the  other  way.  Some  have  split  the  passag< 
as  we  have  seen,  and  made  Paul  personate  another  in  tlu 
midst  of  this  most  careful  picture.  And,  therefore,  with 
proper  timidity  in  respect  to  the  risk,  we  think  the  expression 
'■'■  sold  under  sin''  is  a  harder  statement  to  neutralize  than  the 
rest,  and  therefore  we  take  that  as  our  cue  for  the  integrity  of 
the  whole  design.  But  where  really  is  the  difficulty  in  the 
twenty-second  verse  ?  The  "  inward  man  "  is  not  "  the  new 
w^//,"  on  the  contrary  the  '^  inivard  man"  in  certain  cases  is 
itself  to  be  renewed  (E.  V.).  In  fact  the  only  other  text  ex- 
cept one  (Eph.  3  :  16)  in  which  like  Greek  appears,  is  this  : 
"  Yet  the  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day."  It  means  sim- 
ply the  conscience  ;  that  part  of  a  man  that  sends  him  to 
hell  or  to  heaven.  The  Almighty  asked,  "  Who  hath  put  wisdom 
in  the  inward  parts  ?  "  (Job  38  :  36).  There  is  in  fact  no 
word  in  the  Bible  that  means  the  saved  heart  in  contrast  with 
the  pneuma  of  the  impenitent.  The  song  says  :  "  Their  inward 
part  is  very  wickedness  "  (Ps.  5:9);  and,  more  to  our  purpose, 
**  Thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts  "  (Ps.  51  :  6)  ;  the 
need  of  which  another  Psalm  exemplifies,  for  it  says,  *'  They 
curse  in  their  inward  parts  "  (Ps.  62:4);  ^"<J  Jeremiah,  look- 
ing to  this  cankered  condition  of  the  conscience,  utters  the 
covenant,  **  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it 
in  their  hearts  "  (Jer.  31  :  33);  so  that  there  is  no  difficulty  at 
all  in  this  part  of  the  sentence.  But  *'/  delight" — that  is  rather 
a  strong  experience  !  For  a  thief,  red  with  the  blood  of  a  mur- 
dered passenger,  to  depict  his  condition  as  one  of  "  delight  in  the 
law"  of  the  Almighty,  would  seem  to  turn  all  reason  out  of  doors. 
But  let  us  look  at  that  expression.  The  Greek  has  already  said, 
"  I  consent  to  the  law  "  (v.  16  ;  that  is  "  /  talk  with  (or  like) 
Ike  law  "  (ai'fupT/fii)  ;  and  all  those  who  split  the  passage  into 


2i6  ROMANS. 

two  will  agree  with  me  that  that  is  telling  of  the  impenitent. 
But  how  is  this  in  essence  but  just  the  idea  of  the  other,  "  / 
delight  in  the  law  of  God !''  if  we  go  down  to  the  naked  vo- 
cable, "  I  sympathize — I  have  a  pleasure  in  conunon  with  the  law  " 
of  my  Sovereign  ?  The  tallest  fiend  in  the  pit,  and  that  is  Satan, 
if  he  had  done  some  act  not  so  subverting  in  its  results  as  to 
breed  him  pain,  and  yet  so  noble  as  to  touch  cords  that  hell's 
degrees  of  sins  had  not  yet  ruined,  might  answer  to  this  very 
word,  ''  I  have  a  pleasure  with  it''  {pwiiiSona^.  Hell  will  have 
such  recoils  through  all  eternity  ;  or  else  its  fires  would  cool, 
and  they  would  begin  to  be  unjust. 

But  if  these  principles  remain,  they  are  the  man  m  his  no- 
blest part.  The  noblest  part  of  the  devil  is  his  conscience. 
And  in  a  certain  distinguishable  sense  it  is  the  imperial  part. 
Could  I  stand  up  and  say,  would  I  be  lost  or  saved  ?  or, 
going  further  inward  and  looking  at  the  whole  body  of  my 
iniquity,  would  I  be  a  bad  man  or  a  good  ?  the  devil  himself 
impulsively  might  speak  for  righteousness.  Paul's  language, 
therefore,  is  not  in  the  least  too  saintly.     Let  us  look  at  it. 

17.  But  now  it  is  no  more  I  that  work  it  out,  but  tlie  sin 
that  dwells  in  me. 

Who  is  this '' /.?"  Our  first  impulse  was  to  say,  it  is  the 
conscience.  In  fact  we  prepared  a  page  in  which  we  insisted 
on  conscience  as  the  imperial  part.  As  man  was  created  for 
his  conscience  {^vtviia);  as  that  is  the  beautiful  machinery  for 
which  all  else  is  but  the  case  ;  as  our  Saviour  could  only  have 
been  dealing  with  this  when  he  said  to  Martha,  there  is  but  one 
thing  needful  ;  and  as  this  is  what  wakes  up  under  conviction, 
and  lacerates  the  sinner  till  he  cries  out,  ''  O  wretched  man  that 
J am^"'  we  thought  it  no  risk  to  say  that  this  ''inward  man** 
was  the  *'/"  intended  in  the  text.  But  the  speedy  uprooting 
of  any  such  idea  explains  the  embroilment  that  has  character- 
ized all  the  attempts  upon  the  sense.  We  are  close  upon  a  pas- 
sage which  says  :  "  In  me,  that  is  in  my  flesh."  God  forbid 
that  we  should  be  confusing  the  Epistle  by  confounding  the 
conscience  with  what  is  fleshly.     But  yet  the  "/"  must  be 


CHAPTER    VJJ.  217 

cousin-german  to  the  flesh  in  some  shape  or  other,  for  what 
does  the  apostle  say  ?  If  "  I  live,"  it  is  **  not  I,  but  Christ  " 
that  "  lives  in  me  "  (Gal.  2  :  20).  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
it  cannot  be  the  pneuma  or  conscience  part  of  a  man,  for  what 
is  the  pneuma  but  Christ's  part,  and  precisely  that  which  does 
live  when  Christ  comes  to  reign  within  us  ?  We  do  not  won- 
der that  the  controversies  on  this  part  of  Paul  would  fill  a 
volume.  And  when  we  come  to  a  fresh  attempt,  we  are  pushed 
back  again.  We  are  ready  to  say,  yes,  but  it  must  be  the 
pneuma,  for  what  other  part  of  a  man  could  "  delight  in  the 
law  ?  "  What  but  the  conscience  could  talk  with  or  for  the 
law  {avfKpTifii,  V.  16)  ?  And  what  but  the  conscience  could  an- 
swer to  the  picture,  ''  What  I  uwuld,  that  Jo  I  not,  but  what  I 
hate,  that  do  /"  (E.  V.,  v.  15)?  Just  as  we  are  thinking  of  sit- 
ting down  in  despair,  this  idea  flashes  : — Why  not  make  the 
^*/"to  be  the  impenitent  sinner,  just  as  he  stands?  How 
often  are  knots  untied  by  tumbling  back  into  just  such  literal- 
ness  of  meaning!  Who  can  "/"  more  naturally  be  than 
^'/;"  Now  who  is  *'/;"  Paul,  soul  and  body,  flesh  and 
spirit,  just  as  he  stands,  a  ruined  and  ungodly  sinner.  This 
view  rallies  all  the  passages.  "It is  no  more  I  that  work  it 
out;"  for  I  desire  life,  and  not  death,  and  am  hating  the  ruin 
of  my  spirit,  and  not  nobility  of  character.  And  we  would 
draw  attention  here  to  the  introduction  of  the  word  "mind." 
{yol'<;),  which  noiselessly  takes  the  place  of  the  pneuma  in  the 
twenty-third  verse.  The  "  flesh  "  is  the  whole  of  a  man  out- 
side of  the  spirit.  But  it  includes  his  nicest  reasoning  gift. 
The  '■■'flesh  "  picks  up  facts  from  the  ^'  s/>irit,"  and  learns  to  es- 
timate them.  Being  linked  in  ungodly  men  with  the  remain- 
ders of  a  conscience,  it  learns  to  set  a  value  carnally  upon  a 
noble  life,  and  to  shudder,  more  sometimes  than  a  Christian,  at 
rank  enormities.  Look  simply  at  these  things.  Conscience  is 
not  a  stranger.  It  is  one  aspect  of  intelligence.  It  is  a  sight 
of  holiness,  just  as  the  same  mind  has  a  sight  of  beauty.  How 
natural  that  it  should  pervade  all  my  thought,  and  that  the  ver- 
dict of  what  is  right  should  characterize  all  my  thinking. 
And  the  universality  of  this  ''  tuiud"  (v.  23)  appears  in  the 


2i8  ROMANS, 

very  word  "  sin.'"  It  means  to  miss  the  mark  [a\iapTaviS).  I  have 
a  mind  to  be  happy,  and  I  miss  it.  I  would  Hke  to  be  noble, 
but  this  liking  is  not  strong  enough,  because  my  conscience  is 
decayed,  and  my  flesh  masters  me,  and  I  miss  nobility  of  liv- 
ing. And  this  explains  all  the  terms  of  the  apostle.  He  tells 
me  I  am  a  slave  : — "  The  law  is  spiritual,  but  I  am  fleshly,  sold 
under  sin''  (v.  14).  He  tells  me  I  am  a  dupe,  and  that  ex- 
plains my  being  a  slave  (v.  11).  "Deceived  me,  and  by  it 
slew  me"  (v.  11).  And  away  back  of  Paul  for  twenty  centu- 
ries the  Bible  reeks  with  this  same  idea.  The  escaped  freed- 
man  is  one  "  Who  does  not  lift  up  his  soul  unto  vanity " 
(Ps.  24  :  4),  that  is,  grasp  a  shadow  when  he  is  desiring  happi- 
ness. "  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,"  Jeremiah  tells 
us  (17  :  9);  and  that  it  is  self-deceitfulness  comes  out  in  still 
bolder  appeals.  "  My  tongue  deviseth  evil,"  says  the  inspired 
Psalmist ;  and  that  it  is  evil  to  the  sinner's  self  appears  in  the 
illustration,  for  he  says  it  is  "  like  a  sharp  razor  working 
deceitfully"  (52  :  2).  And  the  same  Psalmist  challenges  this 
duped  enslavement  where  he  exclaims,  "  How  long  will  ye  love 
lies  ?  "  or,  in  the  words  of  our  Version,  "  How  long  will  ye  love 
vanity,  and  seek  after  leasing  "  (Ps.  4:2)? 

Let  us  understand  the  "/,"  therefore,  as  meaning  the  man 
in  his  impenitence,  and  then  each  verse  will  explain  itself. 

18.  For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwells 
no  good  thing,  for  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to  work 
out  the  good,  not. 

Here  already  we  have  a  need  of  our  definition.  "In  me'^ 
does  not  mean  "in  my  flesh,*'  for  we  cannot  harmonize  the 
conscience  without  making  the  "/"  include  the  conscience. 
But  Paul  has  already  said,  "/  ain  fleshly''  (v.  14).  How  per- 
fect then  is  his  consistency  !  He  does  not  doubt  that  he  has 
a  conscience,  but  he  is  constantly  representing  it  as  over-ruled 
and  dying  ;  and  therefore  he  has  a  right  to  his  expression  : 
"/«  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh."  "/"  being  over-ruled  by  "?//>' 
flesh"  am  predominantly  ''fleshly"  (v.  18);  and  though  my 
conscience  animates  my  ^^?nind"  (v.  23),  and  fills  it  with  better 


CHAPTER   VII.  219 

desires,  yet  it  is  deceived  (v.  18;  and  enslaved  (vs.  23,  24);  for  in 
"wv  fiesh,''  the  dominant  part,  "dwells  no  good  thing,  for 
(though)  to  will  is  present  with  me,  (yet)  to  work  out  the 
good,  not."  ''I find''  {^tiinoKu,  K,  V.)  seems  to  have  little  MS. 
authority.  The  Revisers  and  most  moderns  omit  it.  *'  Good," 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  sentence,  means  virtue,  perhaps  from 
a  root  meaning  to  admire.  ''  Good"  in  the  latter  part  means 
the  beautiful.  In  my  flesh  dwells  no  virtue,  and,  as  that  is  my 
dominant  part,  my  appreciation  of  the  beautiful  (morally), 
which  is  high,  gets  no  opportunity  of  being  trained  or 
listened  to. 

19.  For  the  good  which  I  would,  I  do  not ;  but  the  evil 
which  I  would  not,  that  I  practise. 

If  a  man  really  wishes  to  do  a  thing,  he  has  done  it,  I  mean 
in  the  region  of  morals.  For  to  love  an  act  or  to  desire  it,  if 
it  is  an  act  that  can  be  done,  insures  that  it  will  be  done,  and 
is  in  itself  the  virtuous  part  of  it  ;  for  as  this  same  apostle  has 
said,  *' love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law"  (13  :  10).  We  must 
be  careful,  therefore,  not  to  derange  that  first  principle  of 
morals.  But  to  have  our  longings  when  the  action  is  not  just 
present,  when  it  is  in  the  future,  when  it  is  in  the  past,  when  it 
is  in  the  distance,  or  when  it  is  only  in  the  fancy  ;  above  all, 
when  it  is  by  itself,  and  is  not  swept  from  us  by  the  over- 
ruling desires  of  the  flesh,  is  the  idea  in  the  mind  of  Paul. 
We  would  like  to  do  the  Kn/.6v  {the  beautiful),  but  we  do  not 
like  to  enough,  and  sin  is  just  the  tyranny  of  a  superior  affec- 
tion. 

20.  But  if  I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that 
work  it  out,  but  the  sin  that  dwells  in  me. 

To  the  onset  of  the  question,  now  therefore.  If  the  "I" 
be  the  man  himself,  and  man  is  dominantly  '' fiesh,"  and 
''^fiesh  "  by  its  innocent  desires  becomes  guilty  in  its  desires 
when  they  become  exaggerated  by  a  deficiency  of  better,  hov.- 
can  Paul  say  that  it  is  not  "/"  that  work  the  wickedness? 
We  can  give  now  some  easy  replications.  "If  I  do  that  I 
would  not."    Paul's  apparent  paradox  seems  to  justify  itself 


220  ROMANS, 

by  the  will.  Paul's  idea  seems  to  be  that  the  weaker  will 
may  be  mare  properly  the  man.  For  look  at  the  attributes  of 
it.  In  the  first  place  it  is  the  mox^  general  will.  In  the  choice 
of  the  whole  life  together,  who  is  there  that  would  choose  sin? 
In  the  second  place,  it  isthe/z//«r^  will.  In  all  that  broad 
expanse  that  reaches  out  in  the  eye  of  the  present,  all  men  are 
on  the  side  of  what  is  noble.  Again  it  is  the  happy  will.  Paul 
speaks  significantly  of  "  the  sufferi?igs  of  sin.''  Again,  it  is  the 
longing  and  aching  will.  Men  feel  that  they  are  delinquent, 
and  yearn  after  what  is  high  and  noble.  These  are  the  ideas 
of  Paul.  The  whole  cast  of  the  chapter  goes  to  show  that 
that  side  of  a  man  that  has  on  it  the  conscience,  deserves  to  be 
called  more  truly  the  ''/,"  because  that  part  stands  to  what  it 
says,  repents  not  of  what  it  designs,  and  wills  and  hesitates 
now,  even  under  the  brow  of  sin,  to  confess  the  gyves  that  are 
fettering  it  away  from  its  felicity. 

21.  I  find,  then,  the  law,  that  when  I  would  do  good, 
evil  is  present  with  me;  22,  For  I  am  pleased  with  the 
law  of  God  after  the  inward  man. 

We  discover  by  reading  the  commentaries  that  Protestants 
shrink  from  two  things,  first,  from  calling  "the  law*'  any- 
thing but  the  moral  law,  and,  second,  from  imagining  the  con- 
science to  have  the  same  moral  affection,  and,  when  renewed, 
to  be  the  same  sanctified  heart  as  belongs  to  the  believer. 
The  first  of  these  mistakes  has  led  to  a  peculiar  pointing. 
Dr.  Shedd  translates  the  twenty-second  verse  with  the  comma 
after  ttoleIv.  He  puts  "  good  '*  in  apposition  to  "  the  law.''  And 
he  gets  rid  of  ''the law"  as  meaning  anything  else  than  the  deca- 
logue, by  reading  thus  : — ''I  find  then  that  to  me  wishing  to  exe- 
cute the  laWy  which  is  good,  evil  is  present."  The  only  pay  for 
such  a  forced  adhesion  would  be  that  we  could  carry  it  out. 
But  how  about  the  twenty-third  verse,  and  the  "  law  in  the 
members,"  and  "the  law  of  the  mind,"  and  "the  law  of 
sin?"  It  was  a  bold  place  to  attempt  such  a  gloss,  for  these 
three  come  immediately  after.  How  about  "  the  law  of  the 
spirit  of  life,  and  the  law  of  sin  and  of  death!"  (8  :  2).     It  is 


CHAPTER   VII.  221 

plain  that  ''^  law  "  may  mean  a  a  state  of  facts  ^  or  a  ?ule  or  order 
of  realities.  ''The  law''  of  an  earthquake  is  the  way  it  rup- 
tures the  crust,  or  the  direction  in  which  it  is  seen  to  move. 
We  might  quote  other  passages  (3  :  27).  But  when  this  ad- 
hesion to  an  exclusive  sense  attacks  the  second  sentence  of  the 
two,  it  actually  favors  Pelagianism  by  the  craze  of  the  attack. 
Do  listen  to  a  commentator  on  this  second  verse  (v.  22): 
**  Conscience  does  not  delight  in  holiness  (aw//(5o/ia<,  v.  22);  it 
only  approves  of  it  (ahiK^rjiii,  v.  16)  .  .  .  Such  terms  as  ^iXu 
andA^'«^ware  inapplicable  to  the  conscience.  Reason  and  con- 
science belong  to  the  understanding,  and  not  to  the  will  ;  they 
are  cognitive,  not  voluntary  ;  perceptive,  not  affectionate  ; 
legislative,  not  executive  "  (Shedd  in  loco).  Let  it  be  consid- 
ered that  this  is  not  the  definition  of  a  word,  but  of  the  furni- 
ture of  a  lost  man's  nature,  and  that  we  are  invited  to  believe 
that  a  man  may  have  conscience,  but  no  sense  in  the  sense  of 
any  moral  emotion.  How  completely  this  plays,  by  recoil,  into 
the  hands  of  the  Pelagians  !  If  this  be  orthodoxy,  men  will 
say,  it  is  utterly  accursed.  How  can  I  know  holiness  without 
emotion  ?  At  this  late  day  such  things  just  sacrifice  the  truth. 
The  whole  of  law  is  wrapped  up  in  two  emotions.  Our  Saviour 
teaches  it  (Matt.  22  :  40).  How  can  I  know  beauty  without 
feeling  it  ?  And  how  can  conscience  move  an  inch  in  what  Dr. 
Shedd  calls  approving  holiness,  if  holiness  be  an  emotion  of 
love,  unless  it  have  that  emotion  ?  and  if  it  have  it  in  a  decay- 
ing and  dying  form  (as  Satan  has),  that  is  all  we  need  affirm  to 
meet,  in  the  orthodox  sense  of  deficiency,  the  Pelagian  view.  A 
man  is  totally  depraved  when  he  has  not  enough  conscience  ; 
but  a  man  is  not  depraved  at  all  when  he  has  no  conscience. 
Total  depravity  does  not  consist  in  no  moral  emotion  (least  of 
all  in  the  wrong  sort,  for  there  are  not  two  sorts  of  morals), 
but  it  consists  in  a  deficiency  of  it,  and  that  deficiency  must 
increase  if  we  are  not  miraculously  renewed.  Renewal,  there- 
fore, must  be  of  the  conscience,  or,  as  the  Bible  calls  it,  the 
regeneration  of  the  heart.  And  sin's  deficiency  does  not  leave 
us  without  some  love  for  virtue,  but  with  too  little ;  and  as  sin 
itself   is    a   loving   too    little    (13  :  9,   10),    this    is   our   total 


22  2  ROMANS. 

depravity,  for  it  affects  every  faculty,  and  every  act  and  exer- 
cise that  is  possible  to  the  heart. 

"The  law"  (v.  21).  That  means  the  state  of  the  reality. 
"  That  with  me  wishing  to  do  wJiat  is  beautiful."  The  veriest 
sot  has  a  conscience  ;  and  that,  by  the  very  law  of  its  nature, 
has  the  kingly  office.  Its  voice,  but  for  its  deficiency,  would 
be  listened  to  ;  and,  in  spite  of  its  deficiency,  I  confess  the 
splendor  of  loving,  and  the  exalted  excellence  that  resides  in 
doing  right.  "  I  am  pleased  with  the  law  "  (cTw;7jo/zai,  v.  22). 
Paul  has  already  said,  "  I  talk  ivith  the  law  "  (v.  16),  that  is,  I 
say  the  same  thing,  or  assent  to  it.  And  what  does  being 
^^ pleased  with''  it  mean  more?  And  as  to  the  "inward 
man "  we  have  treated  that  along  with  the  whole  sentence 
(see  com.  on  v.  16).  Paul  prays  that  they  might  be  "  strength- 
ened with  might  by  the  Spirit  in  the  inner  man  "  (Eph.  3  :  16). 
It  was  thus  that  they  were  to  be  sanctified.  And  of  that  design 
is  the  exact  gospel.  Every  sinner  has  an  *'  inner  man,'  and 
that  inner  man  is  not  the  self-sufficient  conscience  of  the  Pela- 
gian, which  can  remedy  itself,  but  the  fading  conscience  of  the 
lost,  the  embers  of  which  will  endure  eternally,  but  the  light  of 
which  will  continue  to  decrease,  unless  in  this  world  brightened 
by  the  saving  cross  and  by  the  saving  power  of  the  blessed 
Redeemer. 

23.  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity 
in  the  law  of  the  sin  which  is  in  my  members. 

Eagerness  to  comprehend  all  this  under  "the law"  of  the 
decalogue,  if  it  were  felt,  might  easily  be  indulged,  for  these 
orders  of  the  facts  or  laws  of  the  reality  are  all  exacted  by  Sinai. 
"  The  law  in  my  members,"  or,  as  it  is  afterwards  called, 
"the  law  of  the  sin  which  is  in  my  members,"  is  really  what 
was  announced  in  Eden  as  its  head  anathema  (Gen.  3  :  3),  and 
"  the  law  of  my  mind,"  namely  that  some  wrecked  conscience 
shall  be  left,  is  an  essential  part  of  it.  Just  this  conflict  that 
is  described  will  be  the  curse  upon  lost  sinners  through  infinite 
ages. 

"  Mind."     A  new  term.  Paul  drops  the  expression  pneuma  ; 


CHAPTER   VI I.  223 

for  though  the  lost  have  that  (viz.,  conscience),  yet  they  have 
more  than  that  (see  com.  v.  17).  Paul  pictures  the  whole  oppo- 
sition to  "  death  ;  "  and  that  opposition  consists,  not  in  the  pres- 
ent emotion  of  conscience,  but  in  that  and  all  we  have  ever 
learned.  '\:\\^  s\v\n^x  knows  too  much  to  perish.  And  were  it 
not  for  *•  the  law  of  sin  in  (his)  members,''  he  would  break  out. 
He  is  in  "captivity,"  therefore.  He  is  in  "  r<7///t7/v  in  the 
law  of  sin."  The  preposition  should  be  tc  (see  MSS.).  The 
sinner  is  ''deceived''  (v.  11)  ;  at  least  he  feels  so  when  finally 
awakened  ;  and  all  through  his  history  he  carries  with  him  a 
"w/W  which  would  have  led  him  aright,  containing  more 
than  a  ''heart"  (2  :  5),  because  including  with  the  conscience 
awful  convictions  of  the  truth,  and  fearful  terrors  in  respect  to 
perishing. 

24.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am !  who  shall  deliver  me 
from  the  body  of  this  death  ? 

Of  course  this  is  all  consistent.  A  sinner  a  hundred  times 
cries  out  against  his  bondage.  He  finds  "a  law."  And 
now  the  apostle  hardens  that  into  an  actual  "  body  "  or  organ- 
ized system.  Nay,  not  quite  so  abstract :  his  2.qXm2\  "  body" 
organized  to  sin.  This  expression  has  been  traveling  toward 
us.  "  The  body  of  sin  "  had  to  be  "  destroyed"  (E.  V.),  so  we 
read  in  the  sixth  chapter  (v.  6).  Latterly  we  have  been  hear- 
ing  of  sin  in  our  members  (7  :  23),  that  is,  the  seat  of  the 
*'  desires  of  the  flesh."  And  now  we  put  it  all  together.  There 
is  an  organized  "  body  of  death  ;  '*  and  it  is  too  strong  for  a 
decaying  conscience  ;  and  Paul,  by  crying  out  : 

25.  But  thanks  be  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
liord. 

finishes  his  picture  ;  only  making  the  "death  "  the  darker  by 
showing  that  there  is  no  hope  of  deliverance  save  in  "Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord." 

It  is  not  very  important  to  diagnose  the  next  passage.  It  may 
be  Paul  proper,  or  it  may  be  Paul  in  his  natural  state  or  "  old 
man"  just  as  in  all  the  rest  of  the  passage.  It  makes  little 
difference.     He  had  uttered  the  wailing  cry,  "Who  shall  de- 


2  24  ROMANS. 

liver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  "  and  then  suffered  the 
sky  to  open  with  the  only  possible  deliverance.  After  that 
the  ending  may  be  in  his  own  person — or  not.  It  makes  never 
the  smallest  difterence.  The  expression  "I  myself"  may 
mean  that  or  not.     The  truth  is  the  same  in  either  case. 

25.  So  then  I  myself,  in  the  mind,  serve  a  law  of  God, 
but,  in  the  flesh,  a  law  of  sin. 

The  Christian  does  not  climb  higher  than  such  a  sentence  ; 
so  that  "  I  myself,"  in  this  case,  may  mean  a  Christian.  With 
Paul's  "mind"  he  served  "a  law  of  God,"  just  as  the  sin- 
ner does,  and  that  to  the  extent  that  he  starts  back  from 
greater  reaches  of  iniquity  ;  with  this  difference,  however,  that 
if  it  be  now  at  length  the  risen  Paul  (v.  25,  frst  clause),  he 
serves  more,  and  is  growing,  rather  than  decaying,  in  his  on- 
ward service.  He  is  serving  graciously  in  the  one  case,  and 
feebly  and  decayingly  in  the  other  ;  whereas,  on  the  reverse 
side,  both  serve  a  law  of  sin,  protestingly  and  strugglingly  on 
the  part  of  Paul,  and  protestingly  and  strugglingly  on  the  other 
part,  but  with  struggles,  on  this  latter  part,  less  in  strength, 
and  without  any  looking  to  the  grace  of  the  Redeemer. 

"/,"  therefore,  is  simply  the  impenitent  man;  and  if  it 
changes  in  this  last  verse,  it  is  upon  the  indication  of  that  "  / 
myself,"  and  it  is  in  a  branch  of  the  statement  following  the 
outburst  about  Christ  (v.  25),  and  equally  true  with  either 
meaning. 

**In  the  mind"  and  "in  the  flesh"  are  both  datives 
without  a  preposition,  and,  therefore,  indicate  a  closer  connec- 
tion with  the  service  than  either  kv  (in  )  or  dm  (by).  The  indi- 
cation is  that  both  ''the  mifid''  and  ''  the  flesh  "  constitute  in 
their  emotions  and  conditions  their  respective  service.  We 
do  not  deny  that  the  dative  sometimes  means  the  instrument 
(Jo.  21  :  8  ;  I  Cor.  9:7),  but  it  is  usually  in  physical  matters, 
and  very  rarely  in  those  texts  which  are  dealing  with  pictures 
of  the  mind. 


CHAPTER   VIII.  225 

CHAPTER  VIII. 


1.  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  for  them 
who  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  2.  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of 
the  life  in  Christ  Jesus  freed  me  from  the  law  of  the  sin 
and  the  death.  3.  For  (a  thing  which  the  law  could  not 
do  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh),  God,  sending  His 
own  Son  in  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  on  account  of  sin, 
condemned  the  sin  in  the  flesh,  4.  With  the  result  that 
the  law's  righteous-making  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk 
not  after  flesh  but  after  spirit. 

Paul  lays  a  foundation  for  a  phrase,  and  then  confidently 
uses  it  ;  or  he  uses  a  descriptive  sentence  in  a  thoroughly  in- 
telligible way,  and  then  suddenly  condenses  it  to  avoid  re- 
peating his  language.  In  fact  in  all  Scripture,  and  in  all 
secular  speech,  that  course  occurs  ;  so  that  the  word  "faith," 
for  example,  means  more  than  mere  mental  belief,  and  the 
word  *' clean  "  (Jo.  15:  3)  and  the  word  *' righteous  "  mean 
actually  not  "  righteous,"  but  only  beginning  to  be  less  sinful. 
Books  would  choke  our  dwelling  houses  if  we  could  not 
shorten  them  by  certain  catch  words,  so  to  speak,  which  do 
not  at  all  describe  the  plenary  thought  which  they  are  to  con- 
vey. "  In  Christ "  has  been  long  ago  prepared  for  by  tl\e  ex- 
pressions ''died  with  "  Him,  "  crucified  ivith  Him,'"  ''baptized into'* 
Him,  and,  above  all,  "bred  in  with  Him,''  so  as  to  "live  with 
Him  "  (6  :  3,  5,  6,  8),  the  meaning  being  that  we  so  stand 
"in  Christ,"  that  forensically  we  are  bought  off,  and  spirit- 
ually we  are  "made  righteous"  by  Him  through  His 
redemption.  There  is  a  strong  minority  of  MSS.  which 
add,  "7i>ho  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  Spirit'* 
(E.  v.,  V.  i)  ;  but,  on  the  whole,  it  must  be  rejected.  It  is  a 
perfect  description  of  "  them  who  are  in  Christ."  "No  con- 
demnation." The  expression  is  very  strong,  both  from  the 
word  and  its  position  in  the  sentence.  "  For  the  law."  Here 
comes  again  the  language  which  turns  us  away  from  the  law 
proper,  or  the  decalogue,  to  the  same  word  as  meaning  a  state 


226  ROMANS. 

of  the   reality  (see   7:  21-25).     And   yet   when   we  come  to 
reflect,  "  the  law  "  is  lurking    in  the  neighborhood  after  all, 
and  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  it  starts  up  again  in  the  next 
sentence   (v.  3).     Every  law,  either  of  grace   or  wickedness, 
was  writ  on  Horeb.    And,  therefore,  when  it  says,  *'  The  law  of 
the  Spirit  of  the  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  freed  me  from  the  law 
of  the  sin  and  the  death,"  it  may  indeed  mean  the  order  of 
the  facts,  or  the  rule  of  the  reality,  but  what   is  that  but  the 
description  of  what  was  announced   on  Sinai  ?     "  The  law  of    . 
si?i  and  death  "  was   precisely  that   proclaimed  in   Eden,    "  In  / 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  "  (Gen.  2  :   17).     And  "  the  law  of 
the  Spirit  of  the  life  "  is  as  forensic  as  the  other.     Both  these  / 
laws  must  prevail,  before  Sinai,  with  all  its  thunderings,  can  be  / 
laid  at  rest.    "  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  the  life  in  Christ  Jesus.^ 
First,  it  is  *'/*«  Christ.*'     He  alone  won  our  deliverance.     Sec- 
ond, it  is  a  "  life  in  Christ.''     This  is  the  form  in  which  our  de- 
liverance is  achieved.     Third,  it  is  a  "  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ," 
or,  in  other  words,  a  moral  conscience  revivified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  :    in  other  words   our  being   "  7}iade  righteous  "   is   our 
great  salvation.     And,  fourth,  it  is  a  "  law  of  the  Spirit  of  the 
life;  "  and  that  there  can  be  such  a  ''law  "  is  itself  a  forensic 
reality,  for  it  is  a  ''  law^"  as  the   sentence  proclaims,  that  sets 
me  free  from  another  ''law,"  viz.,  that  dire  rule  that  makes  sin- 
ners sinners,  that  establishes  me  in  sin,  that  makes  sin  an  incur- 
able disease,  that  makes  it  grow  and  reign,  that  makes  this  the 
great  Sinai  curse,  and  that  embodies  it  all  under  that  terrible 
name,  '■^  the  law  of  death."   "Freed  me  "(aorist),  that  is,  did  it 
at  a  certain  time  :  began  to  free  me  (for  all  these  terms  have 
the  reserve  of  incipiency),   "from  the  law  of  the  sin  and  the 
death  "  at  the  time  of  my  conversion. 

3.  "  For."  This  is  for  the  forthcoming  reason  for  th.tfreei?ig, 
which  the  apostle  has  so  definitely  stated.  "A  thing  which 
the  law  could  not  do;"  literally  "the  impossible  thi?tg 
{to  advvaTov)  of  the  law"  In  the  next  chapter  the  apostle 
speaks  of  ^  the  possible  thing  of  God"  (rd  Swardv  avrov,  v.  22). 
It  is  forlornly  sad  that  this  bearing  of  that  sentence  should 
have  been  lost.     When  both  the  versions  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  and 


CHAPTER   VIII.  227 

all  our  commentators  read,  "  wishing  to  make  His  power  kno7i>n^'* 
it  is  one  of  those  numerous  cases  where  the  sense  of  the  Spirit 
is  just  cut  in  two  at  the  moment  of  completion.  Paul  is  deal- 
ing with  the  thought  that  God  does  the  best  He  can,  in  the 
sense  which  God  Himself  encourages  in  numerous  passages 
(Is.  5:4;  Lam.  3  :  33  ;  2  Pet.  3:9);  and  he  suddenly  brings 
out  the  expression,  "■ivillitig  to  make  knowfi  what  is  possible  for 
Him,''  and  the  commentators  ruin  it  by  the  sense,  ivishing  to 
sho^u  His  power.  In  the  present  case,  nobody  has  mistaken 
the  meaning, — "  the  impossible  of  the  law:'  And  Paul  at  once 
prompts  us  as  to  what  it  is  : — *'  The  impossible  of  the  huv  "  is 
the  6iKaiu>iia  (a  "making  righteous").  The  iStKaiu^a  of  the  law 
is  one  of  the  most  splendid  things  in  the  universe.  It  exists 
in  the  case  of  the  Almighty.  God  is  made  righteous,  or  con- 
stituted holy,  by  his  grand  obedience  to  law.  So  are  angels. 
So  was  Christ.  So  are  other  worlds,  we  have  reason  to  be 
confident.  The  (^iKaiufca  of  the  law  is  the  great  "  righteous 
making,''  and  among  boundless  peoples.  But,  on  earth,  it  fails. 
Why  is  that  ?  Paul  describes  it  by  the  language,  A^o  righteous 
making  by  the  works  of  the  la7c>  (Gal.  2  :  16),  and  his  evident 
meaning  is  that  works  which  the  law  can  prompt  are  never  by 
that  prompting  holy  (see  com.  3  :  20).  And  why  ?  He 
answers  in  unnumbered  fashions.  Because  we  are  dead  (v.  6); 
because  we  are  slaves  (v.  21);  because  we  are  deceived  (7:  11); 
because  we  are  cursed  (Gal.  3  :  10);  because  '' the  law  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  life  in  Christ  Jesus  "  must  make  us  free  'from  the 
/aic  of  the  sin  and  the  death  ;  "  or,  to  take  now  the  present  pic- 
ture, because  "it"  (the  law)  "was  weak  through  the  flesh." 
It  could  make  God  righteous,  because  He  is  strong,  or  the 
angel  Michael,  or  an  unfallen  planet,  but  "us"  it  cannot 
reach,  because  it  "was  weak  through  the  flesh."  Paul  had 
said  this  before,  ''JVhen  we  -wen-  yet  weak,  Christ  died  for  the 
ungodly"  (5  :  6).  Our_conscience  is  too  ''weak"  to  resist  our 
flesh,  and  it  is  growing  weaker.  This  constitutes  an  incurable 
curse.  The  law  cannot  reach  that  ;  and  so  Paul  preludes 
what  he  is  about  to  say  : — '*  What  the  law  could  ?iot  do."  "  God 
sending  His  own  son."    This  does  not  prove  that  the  "Son" 


228  ROMANS, 

was  begotten  before  God's  incarnation  in  Him,  for  other  men 
were  spoken  of  as  ^'  sent.''  "  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God 
whose  name  was  John "  (Jo.  i  :  6  ;  see  also  Matt.  9:38; 
Lu.  11:  49).  "In  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh."  A  Presby- 
terian rather  surprises  us  by  the  following  comments:  ^^ ' Afxapriaqy 
the  genitive  of  quality,  showing  that  the  human  nature  spoken 
of  is  a  sinful  and  corrupt  human  nature,  if  contemplated  in 
itself  and  apart  from  the  miraculous  conception  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  qualifying  epithet  dfiapTlag  describes  human  nature 
simply  as  it  descends  from  Adam.  As  such  it  is  a  sinful 
nature.  St.  Paul  is  contemplating  it  from  t/iis  point  of  view 
only,  when  he  employs  the  epithet.  It  does  not  follow  that 
when  a  portion  of  this  sinful  and  corrupt  human  nature  is 
assumed  into  union  with  the  Eternal  Logos  [let  us  rather  say 
with  the  One  Jehovah. — M.]  it  is  still  sinful  and  corrupt.  In 
and  by  the  miraculous  conception  it  is  perfectly  sanctified,  so 
that  though  it  is  sinful  flesh  or  corrupt  human  nature  in  Mary 
the  mother,  it  is  a  *  holy  thing '  or  perfect  human  nature  in 
Jesus  the  child.  Compare  Lu.  i  :  35  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  21  ;  Heb. 
4  :  15  ;  10  :  5  ;  i  Pet.  2  :  22.  .  .  .  The  Logos  does  not 
take  into  personal  union  with  himself  a  human  nature  created 
ex  nihilo  for  this  particular  purpose,  and  which,  consequently, 
could  not  be  a  (^o-p^  dfiapriag,  but  he  assumed  into  union  with 
himself  a  human  nature  that  descended  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion from  Adam  down  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  which  in  this 
connection  and  relation  was  sinful  flesh.  Before,  however,  it 
could  be  a  constituent  part  of  the  God-man,  it  must  be  entirely 
purged  from  the  effects  of  the  Fall  "  (Shedd,  Com.  /*;/  loco). 
Take  away  the  allusion  to  an  "  Eternal  Logos,"  which  John 
carefully  aimed  to  correct  (see  "Is  God  a  Trinity?"  p.  89), 
and  add  the  idea  that  Christ's  intended  sacrifice  purged  His 
humanity  ab  ovo  perfectly  and  before  sinning,  just  as  it  did 
that  of  any  pre-Christian  like  Abraham  imperfectly  and  after 
sinning,  and  we  have  in  Dr.  Shedd  a  singularly  correct  exposi- 
tion. ''In  the  likeness."  This  word  biioidim  occurs  but  six  times  in 
the  Testament.  On  each  of  those  six  occasions  it  means,  not 
simply  like,  but  very  closely  and  essentially  like.     Four  of  the 


CHAPTER   VIII.  229 

cases  are  in  Romans.     ''In  a  liki-ncss  of  an  image  Oj    corruptible 
man'  (Rom.  i  :  23),  means  strangly  and  very  ruinously  like.  ''In 
the  likeness  0/  Adam's  transgression'  (Rom.  5  :   14),  means  very 
specifically  like  it.     "In  the  likeness  0/ His  death  "  (6  :  5),  means 
eminently  /ike,  yet  with  differences.  "In  the  likeness  of  men  "  (Phil. 
2  :  7),  means  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  man,  yet  with  differ- 
ences, as  for  example  that  He  did  not  sm,  as  for  example  that 
He  had  no  father,  and  as  for  example  that  He  was  one  with  the 
Almighty.  So,  as  Dr.  Shedd  has  partially  declared,  "  God  sending 
His  oivn  son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh;'  sent  Him  like  in  most 
intimate  particulars  ;  first,  as  of  the  race  of  Adam  ;  second,  as 
under  that  curse  ;  third,  as  inheriting  infirmity  ;  fourth,  as  hor- 
ribly tempted  ;  fifth,  as  horribly  tortured.  His  torture  caused  by 
His  temptation  ;  sixth,  as  dying  and    rising;  and  seventh,   as 
bemg  a  man  like  us,  in  every  sense  not  now  hereinafter  to  be 
distinctly  declared.     For,  first,  He  is  unlike  us  in  His  Divinity. 
Specifically  and  actually  and  in  eternal  person  He  is  what  none 
of  us  is,  (lod  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person 
forever.     And  then  He  differs,  second,  in  sinlessness.    He  was 
like  "sinful  flesh,"  but  with  that  difference,  for  the   reasons 
stated,  that  He    was   never   "sinful."     And    then    if   we   add 
all  the  primacy  of  His   redemption,  that   He  is  the  head  and 
we  are  the  members,  that  He  is  the  God  and  we  are  His  people, 
that  He  is  the  Shepherd  and  we  are  the  flock,  that  we  are  the 
lost  and  He  is  the  Redeemer,  that  He  is  of  the  first  Adam,  but 
nevertheless  also  the  last  Adam,  and  saved,  we  hope,  Adam  and 
millions  afterward,  we  have  reason  to  see  amazing  differences, 
and  yet  one  vast  likeness,— that  He  was  born  of  sinful  blood,' 
and  inherited  curses  from  His  kindred.    "  And  on  account  of 
sin."     "  God,  sending  His  own  son  in  likeness  of  sinful  Jlesh,  and 
on  account  of  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh."     It  has  been 
''condemned"  and  will  be  "condemned"  whenever  the  lost  sink 
into   perdition.       But  the    passage    becomes   expressive   only 
when  we  finish  it.    "  With  the  result."    See  all  that  has  been 
said  of  \va  in  other  passages  (4  :  18  ;  6  :   i,  6  ;  Gal.  5  :  17).  It  is 
nothing  wonderful  to  condemn  sin,  but  to  condemn  sin  with  cer- 
tain results,  that  is  the  glory  of  the  apostle.     The  law  makes 


2.30  ROMANS. 

God  righteous,  and  Christ,  and  Gabriel,  and  glorious  myriads 
of  the  unfallen,  but  it  makes  me  miserable,  and  damns  me, 
and  follows  me  through  the  eternal  age,  but  lo  !  wonder  of 
the  universe  !  Christ  has  altered  all  that,  and  by  His  very 
'^likeness  to  sitiful  fleshy''  and  '^ 07i  accoiuit  of  sifi,"  that  He 
might  abolish  it.  He  has  managed  to  condemn  sin,  which  is 
all  the  law  demands,  and  then  to  set  loose  the  law  itself  that 
it  may  return  to  its  universal  work, — ^^  with  the  result  that  the 
law's  righteous-making  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not 
after  flesh  but  after  spirit." 

^^  Righteous-making y  There  is  no  deference  to  the  apostle 
in  saying  ''  righteousfiess"  (E.  V.).  Why  did  not  he  say 
"  7'ightcoHsness  ?  "  Amaiufia  has  a  distinct  orthography,  and  it 
means  the  making  of  any  thing  or  man  right  or  righteous.  Law 
is  nothing  to  a  cow  or  horse,  but  can  become  law  only  to  a 
conscience.  Nay,  we  can  weave  that  sentence  closer  yet,  and 
say  that  it  requires  conscience  to  make  a  law,  or  to  give  it  any 
being,  or  impart  to  it  any  binding  efficacy  whatever.  Law,  in 
this  grander  sense,  makes  all  the  righteousness  in  the  universe. 
But  to  make  anybody  righteous,  he  must  have  a  conscience, 
and  this  only  the  Holy  Spirit  can  supply.  If  the  law  ceases  to 
have  power  to  make  any  creature  righteous,  it  is  a  sign  the 
conscience  has  decayed.  The  law  cannot  cure  that,  only  the 
Almighty.  But  "  7C'hat  the  laiv  could  Jtot  do  i?t  that  it  was  weak 
through  the  flesh  "  (that  is  the  flesh  running  riot  through  fee- 
bleness of  conscience),  God  did.  He  satisfied  the  law  by  an- 
other method  of  co?ide7nning  si?i;  that  the  *'  righteous -makifig  " 
power  ''  of  the  law  "  might  be  restored,  with  the  result  indica- 
ted at  the  close,  that  we  should  ''walk  not  after  flesh,''  which 
with  an  enfeebled  conscience  will  always  take  the  rein,  but 
"  after  spirit,''  viz.,  after  that  quickened  conscience,  after  that 
roused  a?id  a?ii7?iated  se7ise  which  Christ  bought  for  us,  and 
which  is  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  now  is  the  main  stem  of  the  reasoning.  But  we  wish 
also  to  go  back  and  take  up  other  ideas,  which  Paul,  in  the  ex- 
uberance of  his  thought,  has  made  it  carry  with  it.  \Vhen 
Paul  speaks  of  C07ide7}wi7ig  sin,  he  means  mainly  condemningjt 


CHAPTER   VIII.  231 

by  adequate  punishment  in  the  cross  of  the  Redeemer.  But, 
almost  entanghng  the  text,  has  come  the  thought,  which  some 
exegetes  have  made  the  only  one,  that  Paul  by  the  whole  trend 
of  his  explication  must  mean  condemning  to  its  overthrow. 
When  the  damned  criminal  is  tormented  in  the  pit,  sin  is  **  con- 
demned,'* because,  as  in  the  case  of  Christ,  it  is  adequately 
punished  ;  but,  instead  of  being  "  condemned''  by  overthrow,  it 
grows  immortal.  The  question  is,  Did  not  Paul  mean  the  very 
opposite  of  this  in  the  language  we  are  considering  ? 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  beginning.  The  word  "  condem?iation' 
(v.  i),  is  the  pregnant  word  in  all  the  passage.  It  is  beyond 
doubt  entirely  forensic  ;  but  Paul  has  prepared  us  to  be  entirely 
intelligent  about  it  by  the  close  discussion  in  the  previous 
chapters.  It  is  entirely  forensic  ;  but  the  very  nature  of  the 
verdict  in  this  penal  court  is  a  verdict  of  abandonment  to  sin. 
There  is  no  point  stronger  than  this  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans.  It  lies  at  the  very  foundation.  Paul  turns  it  over  in 
every  form  of  expression.  He  rarely  speaks  of  torment  ; 
though,  let  it  be  understood,  ''  tribulation  and  an^::uish"  are  a 
distinct  threatening  of  the  law.  But  even  "  tribulation  and 
anguish,"  though  they  are  bodily,  and  though  they  are  mental, 
are  themselves  also  in  part  put  down  as  moral.  And  that  grim 
monster,  our  physical  dissolution,  back  in  the  very  dawn- 
ing of  the  world,  was  seized  upon  as  the  very  darkest  illus- 
tration of  sin.  God  said,  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  die  "  (Gen.  2  :  17).  Moses  constantly  repeats  the 
picture  ;  ''  Behold  I  have  set  before  you  this  day  life  and  death, 
blessing  and  cursing."  Paul  more  than  any  one  else  adopts 
the  same  ancient  illustration.  ''  The  wages  of  sin  is  death." 
And  he  puts  it  always  in  the  most  practical  position.  "  /  had 
been  alive  without  the  laiu  atany  time."  With  Paul,  therefore,  the 
KarciKpifia  ('*  condemnation  ")  is  not  a  thing  that  breeds  torment, 
and,  as  an  incidental  thing,  leaves  us  in  our  sins  ;  but  just  the 
other  way.  The  KaraKpiua  in  its  very  gist  is  wickedness.  And 
Paul,  in  the  previous  passages,  has  detailed  the  only  deliver- 
ance. The  only  deliverance  from  sinfulness  is  suffering,  and 
such  suffering  as  Christ  could   endure,  imparting  to  it  the  in- 


232  ROMANS. 

nocence  of  His  humanity  and  the  price-speaking  significance  of 
His  impersonate  Godhead  ;  and  when  the  dehverance  comes, 
just  as  in  the  instance  of  the  KaraKpiua,  the  redemption  is  entirely- 
forensic,  but  in  its  main  essence  moral.  Instead  of  delivering 
us  from  the  curse,  and  then,  as  a  consequence  of  that,  making 
us  holy,  the  diKaico/^a  or  ^'  righteous-inakhig  "  of  the  cross  is  the 
very  gist  of  the  gospel  benefit.  It  mars  the  gospel  to  speak 
of  the  "  imputation  of  righteousness."  The  imputation  of 
suffering  from  so  innocent  a  Prince  as  Christ  is  enough  for 
our  redemption,  and  then  the  imparting  of  righteousness  is  the 
very  substance  of  the  bestowment  when  we  are  to  speak  of  our 
gracious  pardon.  There  is  indeed  a  surplus  over  in  the  shape 
oi'Wwpe."  Paul  is  about  to  say  (v.  24),  ''We  were  save^  in 
the  form  of  hope;''  and  that  thought  is  expressed  by  the  word 
''earnest''  (2  Cor.  i  :  22  ;  5  :  5.).  When  we  are  converted  we 
have  a  "  hope  of  righteousness  which  is  by  faith  "  (Gal.  5  :  5). 
But  our  great  seedling  blessing  is  our  holiness  ;  and  our  great 
mother  curse  is  our  sin.  And  the  KardKpifja,  which  this  chapter 
triumphs  in,  is  not  a  forensic  verdict  chiefly  of  pain,  but  a 
forensic  verdict  chiefly  of  sin,  and  that  we  may  make  no 
mistake  in  this,  all  Paul's  previous  reasoning  comes  here  into 
play. 

For  example  the  diKaluaa  is  purchased.  That  is  to  say,  the 
making  of  us  righteous  is  the  thing  bought  by  the  suffering 
of  the  Redeemer.  In  the  second  place  the  dLKaiujia  must  be  by 
God.  That  is  to  say,  He  who  created  us  must  create  us  over 
again  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  God,  as  He  moves  in  creatures,  is 
called  the  Spirit  ("  breath,"  Heb.  and  Gr.,  Job  26  :  13),  and,  as 
He  moves  morally  in  creatures,  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit, 
This,  unlike  the  "holy  arm"  (Is.  51  :  9  ;  52  :  10),  or  the  ''holy 
name  "  (Deut.  28  :  58  ;  Ps.  in  :  9),  has  been  snatched  by  Pla- 
tonic mutilators  of  the  truth,  and  made  to  degrade  our  Christi- 
anity. This  Holy  Breath  of  our  divine  Regenerator  meets  aT 
part  of  nature  where  He  was  always  present,  viz.,  our  con- 
science, and  it  is  by  renewing  that  that  a  man  is  justified^ 
{made  righteous). 

We  understand  then  at  once  the  language  that  is  to  come  so 


CHAPTER   VIII.  233 

prominently  into  play.     The  ''spirit''  is  that    part  of  a  man 
that  is  tenanted  by  the  Spirit  of  (iod,   and  the  '' Jlcsh  "   is  all 
the  other  part  ;  and  now  we  need  scarcely  do  more  than  repeat 
the  dilTerent  verses  as  they  occur.     "  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of 
the  life  in  Christ  Jesus  has  made  me  free  from  the  laiu  of  the 
sin  ami  the  death  "  (v.  2).     *'  The  law'  for  good  is  just  as  much 
of    Sinai    as    ''the   law"  for  evil;  for   Christ   has   paid   ''the 
law  "  till    it  demands  our  sanctification.     "  For  what  the  laiu 
could  not  do  in  that  it  7C'as   zceak   through    the  flesh."     This   is 
transparently  intelligible.     He  is  about  to  say,  "So  then  they 
that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God"    (v.  7),    and,  one 
sentence  previously,  "  For  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  death" 
(v.  6),  and  the  reason  is    obvious  :— If  Christ    has  bought    us, 
and  we  are  to  be  saved    by  the  Spirit,  and  we  quench   the 
Spirit,  of  course  we  "  cannot  please  God,"  and  originally  without 
any    Christ    at    all,  being    left    entirely  to    the    "Jlesh"  the 
law  would  be  impotent  except  to  curse.     But  {"  a  thing  \vhich 
the  law  could  not  do  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh),  God, 
sending  His  own  son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin, 
■condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  "   (v.  3).     The  verb  is  in  the  aorist! 
We  do  not  like  to  press  such  points.     But  the  word  condemn 
is  never  elsewhere  applied  to  "  sin,"  and  never  anywhere  in  any 
such  case  as  this  given  in  an   aorist  meaning.     It  will    be  in- 
nocent certainly  at  least  to  use  it  as  an  illustration.     Condem- 
nation is  never  finished   in   an   everlasting  Tophet.     We  are 
"condemned"  and  we  are  "  condemned"     Christ  finished  trans- 
gression and  made  an  end  of  sin  (Dan.  9  :  24),  and,  therefore, 
in  Him  transgression  was  punished  m  an  aorist  sense.     "  With 
the  result  that  the  righteous-making  of  the  law  "   (the  ''  righteous- 
?naking  "  in  every  sense,  that  is,  the  right-making  of  the  act  and 
the  "  righteous-making  "  of  the  subjects  of  it  \'"  might  be  ful- 
filled  in  us  ;  "  and  then,  as  a  matter  of  course,  comes   this  de- 
scription, "  ivho  7valk  not  after  Jlcsh,  but  after  spirit." 

This  damned  state  of  being  in  the  "flesh"  Paul  character- 
izes thus  as  being  a  "  walk  "  or  voluntary  trespass,  but  he  goes 
deeper  in  the  verse  that  follows,  and  makes  it  a  matter  of  our 
^*  thinking." 


234  ROMANS. 

5.  For  they  that  are  after  flesh  do  think  the  things  of  the 
flesh,  but  they  that  are  after  spirit,  the  things  of  the 
spirit. 

The  question  that  agitated  theology  some  decades  ago, 
whether  all  sin  consisted  in  moral  exercises,  is  completely 
ploughed  under  in  these  chapters  of  Paul.  Sinfulness  is  a  de- 
ficiency of  love.  Love  is  in  two  separate  senses.  A  man  is  a 
sinner  who  does  not  love  God  sufficiently  in  one  sense,  and  his 
neighbor  sufficiently  in  another.  And  the  Bible  measures  out 
to  us  with  exactness  the  bounds  of  this  sufficiency  (Matt.  22  r 
37)  390'  What  did  the  old  theologian  mean  ?  If  he  meant  that 
sinfulness  was  an  exercise,  the  very  idea  was  absurd.  If  he 
meant,  however,  that  a  sinful  state,  like  a  sinful  act,  might  be 
punished,  again  there  is  a  tinge  of  foolishness,  for  we  have 
seen,  and  most  abundantly  from  Paul,  that  sinfulness  is  itself 
a  punishment.  Let  not  men  sit  loose  to  the  idea  of  torment, 
for  we  believe  in  it  as  an  eternal  penalty  ;  but  sin  is  the  great 
mother  curse,  and  so  far  as  sin  means  sinfulness  it  is  itself 
the  higher  penalty  of  the  violated  law.  If,  however,  sin  means 
acts,  of  course  they  are  moral  exercises.  But  the  question 
really  goes  deeper.  The  puzzle  that  agitates  men's  minds  is 
precisely  that  with  which  the  apostle  grapples.  If  the  question 
mean,  is  there  anything  sinful  in  the  mind  except  moral  exer- 
cises, we  would  answer  yes  and  no.  Sinfulness  is  a  deficiency. 
If  a  deficiency  is  a  "  thing  "  we  would  answer.  Yes.  But  Paul 
goes  so  far  in  asserting  the  mere  privativeness  of  transgression 
that  he  says,  "  What  I  do  I  know  not''  ['j  :  15).  We  cannot 
see  a  nothingness.  We  can  see  with  the  eyes  of  ^^  flesh,''  that 
is,  the  joys  and  tastes  of  our  unsaved  nature.  And  we  can  see 
with  the  eyes  of  conscience,  a  thing  that  confuses  our  ideas, 
for  there  is  a  spiritual  sight  left  in  God's  part  of  our  decaying 
humanity.  But  our  deficiejicy,  who  can  see  that  ?  Paul,  there- 
fore, solves  the  riddle  when  he  declares  that  our  ^'  flesh  "  is  the 
seat  of  our  iniquity.  Conscience  being  altogether  too  weak,  is 
trodden  upon  and  smothered  by  other  desires.  And  those 
desires  which  in  heaven  would  be  our  glory,  on  earth  are  our 
sins,  because  they  *'  exercise,"  so  to  speak,  our  deficiencies  of 


CHAPTER    VIII.  235 

"j//>//,"  and   are  those  desperate   lusts  which  violate  our  re- 
maining virtue. 

Now,  as  the  being  of  the  mind  shows  itself  only  in  its  daily- 
exercises,  the  mind  is  destroying  itself  thought  by  thought. 
Every  act  sinks  it,  and,  what  Isaiah  says  under  a  beautiful 
image,  "  We  all  do  fade  as  a  leaf  "  (Is.  64  :  6),  Solomon 
grapples  more  boldly,  for  he  says  **  emotion  "  (and  the  word 
covers  everything,  aroused  feeling  of  any  kind),  "  kills  the 
foolish  man  "  (Job  5  :   2). 

6.  For  the  thinking  of  the  flesh  is  death,  but  the  think- 
ing of  the  spirit  is  life. 

Paul's  picture  is  now  complete.     Let  us  bring  up  the  other 
part  of    it.      "  For  they  that  are  after   flesh  do  think  the 
things  of  the  flesh."    This  is  the  very  nature  of  the  curse. 
When   once   the   conscience   is   weakened,   what   then  ?      The 
"yZfjr/4 '•  being  stronger  than  the  ''spirit;'  will  of  course  do 
most  of  the  "thinking,"  and   if  each  thought  kills,  there  is 
evolved  just  what  the  Bible  describes,  viz.,  a  sinking  and  a  dying 
condition  of  the  sinner.     Our  being,  so  far  as  we  see   it,  floats 
in  a  perpetual  current.  That  current  soils  or  clears  itself.  Each 
good  thought  clears  it.     Each  bad  thought  fouls  it.     Now,  as 
"  they  that  are  after  flesh  do  think  the  things  of  the  flesh,  the 
thinking  of  the  flesh  is  death  ;  "  and  as  "  they  that  are  after 
Spirit"  do  think  "the  things  of  the  Spirit,  the  thinking 
of  the  Spirit  is  life."     This  is  saying  all   the  truth  ;  for  to 
say  with  Christ,  *'  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent 
me  "  (Jo.  4  :  34),  or  to  say  with  Paul,  "  Herein   do  I   exercise 
myself'.'  (Acts  24:   16),  does  not  go  a  stone's  throw  further; 
for  the  virtue  of  an  act  is  in  the   thought  (14:   14),  and   the 
value   of  an  "exercise"  does  not  consist  in  the  agitation  of  a 
nerve,  or  the  practice  of  a  muscle,  but  consists  in  the  ''thought'* 
that  rules  and   prompts  it.     So  that  if  \.\i&  " thought''  of  the 
flesh  is  of  "  the  things  of  the  flesh,  the  thinking  of  the  flesh  is 
death,"  while  "the  thinking  of  the  Spirit,"  which  must  be  the 
special  gift  of  a  redemption,  *'  is  life' 

6.  (and  peace,    7.  Because  the  thinking  of  the  flesh 

is  enmity  in  respect  to   God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the 


236  ROMANS 

law  of  God,  for  neither  can  it  be ;    8.  But  they  that  are 
in  flesh  cannot  please  God). 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  draw  a  line  around  these  sentences 
by  way  of  parenthesis.  Paul  keeps  close  in  all  his  epistle  to 
ideas  that  are  subjective  ;  at  the  same  time  he  would  tremble 
if  he  forgot  anything  forensic.  He  pauses,  therefore,  to  keep 
up  a  continual  balance.  Having  plunged  more  deeply  than 
usual  into  philosophic  reasoning,  and  shown  by  the  very  nature 
of  the  soul  that  evil  '^thought''  blackens  and  deadens  and  will 
damn  the  sinner,  he  takes  in  by  a  sort  of  eddy  of  his  rhetoric 
the  fact  that  nature  is  but  the  order  of  the  Most  High.  Sin 
breeds  sin  by  a  curse,  and  the  curse  is  but  the  creature  of 
"the  law."  If  "  the  thinking  of  the  Spirit  is  life,''  therefore,  by 
an  order  equally  lawful,  Paul  takes  occasion  to  throw  in  the 
idea  that  it  is  also  "  peace  "  ;  and  then,  by  a  neatly  carved 
parenthesis,  he  gives  the  obvious  reasons,  "  Because  the 
thinking  of  the  flesh"  (and  how  well  he  may  say  this  is  evi- 
dent, because  ''  the  thinking  of  the  flesh  "  constitutes  all  possible 
transgression) — ^^ Because  the  thinking  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  in 
respect  to  God:"  See  remarks  on  this  under  a  previous  passage 
{7:  22):  "For  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God."  Of  course 
not:  for  if  holiness  consists  in  love,  or,  if  you  please,  in  ^^ thought,'' 
how  can  love  spring  in  that  which  by  its  very  nature  as  de- 
fined, has  the  ''  desires  "  of  other  things.  "//  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  for  neither  can  it  be."  And  then  the  residue 
thoroughly  defends  our  reasoning.  It  is  unfortunate  to  say, 
'■^ eiimity  against  God"  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  for  the  preposition  is 
elc  not  Kara,  and  the  enmity  is  both  ways,  of  us  against  God, 
and  of  God  against  us.  'E^f  expresses  that ;  and  therefore,  we 
have  said,  *'/;/  respect  to"  the  Almighty.  Paul's  only  comment 
on  the  '■'-enmity"  will  not  suit  ^^  against"  (E.  V.  &  Re.);  for  it 
is  this  : — "But  they  that  are  in  flesh  cannot  please  God." 

The  phenomenon  next  to  be  considered  is  that  a  little  par- 
ticle ;t7r£|0,  which  no  commentator  seems  to  have  considered, 
gives  a  fresh  turn,  and  imparts  a  new  significance,  where  pro- 
gress in  the  discussion  seemed  rather  to  fail.  It  would 
naturally  strike  the  apostle  that  there    were  no   people  "  in 


CHAPTER   VIII.  237 

Spirit'';  and  that  being"///  /iesh  "  \\3.s  so  universal  in  our 
humanity,  that  '^  tJiinkin^:;  the  t/ii/ii^s  of  the  flesh''  would  more 
exercise  the  saints  than  what  pious  exercise  they  had  in  the 
''things  of  the  Spirit."  Paul,  therefore,  having  laid  down  the 
fundamentals  in  the  case,  and  committed  himself  to  the  fact 
that  ''the  thinlzing  of  the  flesh  is  death,"  shaj^es  the  teacning  to 
the  case  of  the  believer.  He  says  boldly,  "Ye  are  not  in 
flesh,  but  in  Spirit,"  and  then,  to  make  true  so  impossible  an 
idea,  he  has  the  same  reserve  that  our  Saviour  needed  when 
He  said,  "  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word  that  I  have 
spoken  unto  you."  The  apostles  were  anything  but  clean. 
When  Paul,  therefore,  says,  "  Wherefore  holy  brethren,  par- 
takers of  the  heavenly  calling"  (Heb.  3  :  i),  he  drops  the 
sense  to  the  proper  state  of  the  reality,  just  as  we  shall  see 
he  does  in  the  present  instance  : — 

9.  But  ye  are  not  in  flesh,  but  in  Spirit,  if  even  a  Spirit 
of  God  dwell  in  you. 

It  would  have  been  strangely  confusing  if  Paul  had  not  said 
this.  He  of  all  men  needed  some  such  "  if  even."  He  had 
looked  Corinth  boldly  in  the  face,  and  said  to  its  saved  saints 
in  the  broadest  language,  "  Ye  are  yet  fleshly  "  (i  Cor.  Z'-  Z)\ 
and  then  would  make  them  confess  it  ;  "  For  while  one  saith 
I  am  of  Paul,  and  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,  are  ye  not  fleshly  ? " 
To  take  for  granted,  therefore,  that  all  saints  thought  "the 
thinking  "  of  the  Spirit,  and  to  sweep  them  into  all  the  bless- 
ings of  the  Kingdom  without  a  word  of  explanation,  were  not 
like  Paul,  and,  therefore,  just  such  a  turn  in  the  passage 
should  be  looked  for  as  we  are  about  to  unearth.  Paul,  to 
arrange  it,  brings  in  a  new  word  {o'lKfi).  He  is  willing  to  admit 
their  saintship,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  in  His  saving  efficacy 
"dwell  in"  them  at  all.  Their  infirm  beginnings  in  the  Spirit 
account  for  their  delinquency.  And,  therefore,  he  is  ready  to 
pronounce  upon  them  at  once  :  "  Ye  are  not  in  flesh  but  in 
Spirit ;"  and  to  do  it  upon  this  new  departure,  *' If  even  a 
Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you ; " 

9.—  But  if  any  man  have  not  a  Spirit  of  Christ  he  is 
none  of  His. 


238  ROMANS. 

Paul  has  thus  brought  all  down  to  the  gracious  level  of  the 
Gospel. 

"7/  even."'  This  word  (aVep)  occurs  six  times  in  the  whole 
New  Testament.  The  lexicons  agree  that  it  means  "  if  even  " 
sometimes,  and  that  is  enough  for  our  translation  ;  but  it 
really  looks  as  if  the  whole  six  cases  had  a  touch  of  the  same 
significance.  They  are  all  of  Paul  except  one,  and  that  one 
is  perhaps  more  distinctly  interesting  than  most  of  Paul's 
cases.  It  is  in  the  language  of  Peter  (i  Pet.  2:  3).  He  is  com- 
manding, ''  As  new-born  babes,  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the 
word  that  ye  may  grow  thereby  "  (E.  V.),  and  then  adds,  what 
in  the  ordinary  translation  seems  superfluous,  "  If  so  be  ye  have 
tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious  "  (E.  V.).  Winer  goes  so  far 
as  to  say  that  i  Pet.  2  :  3  seems  to  be  of  a  rhetorical  nature  ! 
(Win.  Gram.  §.  53,  8).  And  yet  what  really  does  it  mean  unless 
we  give  to  etTrep  its  peculiar  significance  ?  If  you  have  even 
^^  tasted''  that  the  Lord  is  gracious,  then,  under  the  instinct  of 
that  taste,  '^ grow"  nursing  your  desire  for  the  sincere  milk  of 
the  word.  Paul  says,  ^' If  even  there  are  those  called  Gods,  as 
there  are  Gods  many  and  Lords  many  "  (and  anything  else  in 
those  days  was  a  very  improbable  claim),  yet  '*  to  us  there  is 
but  one  God,  etc.,  etc."  (i  Cor.  8:  5).  And  in  arguing  for 
the  resurrection  he  says.  If  the  more  universal  thing  does  not 
happen,  or,  expressing  it  in  his  own  language,  ''//"  even  dead 
men  are  not  raised,  then  is  Christ  not  risen  "  (i  Cor.  15  :  15). 
"//"  we  evefi  suffer  with  Him  "  is  one  of  the  other  cases,  and 
we  shall  meet  it  presently  (v.  17);  and  the  only  remaining  one 
is  2  Thess.  i  :  6. 

"Dwell."  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  seems  to  be.  Reign 
in  us  and  fill  us  with  His  fruits,  He  certainly  does  not,  but  "  // 
(He)  even  dwell  in  "  us,  or,  to  express  it  in  a  kindred  English,  if 
He  make  even  an  imperfect  lodgment  in  our  nature,  then  we  may 
be  said  to  be  "  in  Spirit  j  "  and  here  Paul  takes  his  stand.  We 
must  have  this,  or  not  Christ  in  any  fashion  ;  or,  abiding  by 
our  text,  "  If  any  man  have  not  a  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none 
of  His." 

'M  Spirit^     A  little  further  on  we  have,  "^  spirit  of  bojid- 


CJIAPTKR    VIII.  239 

tf^f,"  and  a  little  further  still,  ''■a  spirit  of  adoption^'  (v.  15), 
We  are  debating  whether  "  spirit''  without  a  capital  would  not 
answer  better,  as  ^'spirit"  in  man  and  in  Ciod  border  so  closely 
together  (i  :  4  ;  8  :  9  ;  Gal.  5  :  17)  ;  but  all  is  so  of  the  Holy 
Spirit*  that  it  nuiy  do  no  harm  always  to  be  marking  our  debt 
to  God  for  our  sanctitication,  though  the  anarthrous  condition 
of  the  TTVEv/ia  should  certainly  be  noticed. 

A  third  person  of  a  Trinity,  and  a  procession  of  this  third 
personage  from  the  first  and  the  second,  and  long  controver- 
sies and  wars  that  established  this,  make  "-^  filioque  "  a  word 
that  will  one  day  be  a  shame  in  the  church.  That  Paul  should 
have  doubled  on  his  idea,  and  said  "  a  Spirit  of  Christ^'*  is 
ruined  by  th(^se  ancient  rationalisms.  Nothing  in  Germany  is 
more  cold  than  this.  The  "  Spirit''  is  God,  or  as  Paul  after- 
wards expressed  it,  "  Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit  "  (2  Cor.  3  : 
17).  '\\\t''  Spirit  of  Christ"  is  that  of  which  Gabriel  spoke, 
which  overshadowed  his  mother  (Lu.  i  :  35).  It  is  God  Him- 
self without  whom  Christ  was  a"  worm  "  (Is.  41:  14  ;  Ps.  22:  6). 
And  recognizing  God  as  immediately  in  Christ,  and,  in  fact, 
immediately  Christ,  and  immediately  in  us,  though  in  our  case 
only  lodging  imperfectly  within  us,  is  the  only  way  to  hold  up 
naturally  before  us  our  baptism  into  the  Redeemer. 

10.  But  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of 
sin,  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness. 

"Christ  in  you."  The  chapter  began  with  just  the  oppo- 
site arrangement  of  the  language,  for  it  spoke  of  those  *'  in 
Christ"  (v.  i).  Paul  seems  to  have  employed  all  his  terse  ex- 
pressions mainly  in  this  epistle.  It  is  fortunate  that  in  each 
case  he  thoroughly  explains.  Before  he  ventured  upon  the 
expression,  those   "///  Christ''    he    explained   thoroughly  our 


*  Spirit  is  the  God-part  of  man.  Even  if  it  stands  with  a  small  s  it  is  con- 
science ;  and  conscience  is  God  in  tlie  human  soul.  When  our  spirit  is 
warmed  by  God's  Spirit,  "  God  is  in  (us)  of  a  truth  "  (i  Cor.  14  :  25).  And 
our  Saviour  takes  care  to  say  this.  He  says,  "Spirit  is  God."  "  The  hour 
cometh  and  now  is  when  the  true  worshipers  shall  worship  the  Father  in 
Spirit  and  in  truth.  Spirit  is  God,  and  they  that  worship  Him,  must  wor- 
ship Him  in  Spirit  and  in  truth  "  (Jo.  4  :   23,  24). 


240  ROMANS. 

being    '•^baptized  iiito  His  deaf/i,"  and  our  being  '•'- platited  to- 
gether'' (E.  v.),  or,  more  strictly  to  give  the  Greek,  our  being 
"  bred  in  with  Him  in  the  likeness  of  His  resurrection.''    He  does 
not  forget  the  same  necessary  prelude  here.     He  speaks  of  the 
Spirit  in  us  (v.  9)  ;  calls  it  ''a   Spirit  of  God,"  and   then,   as 
given  to  the  Redeemer,  "  a  Spirit  of  Christ"  (v.  9)  ;  and  then, 
as  won  by  His   death,  and   actually  embraced  by  His  divine 
nature  given  to  His  people,  speaks  of  it  as  ''Christ  in  you."  Our 
blessed  Redeemer  is  in  us,  not  when  His  flesh  is,  in  the  shape  of 
a  transubstantiated  wafer,  nor  when  He  Himself  is,  by  a  foolish 
notion  of  the  omnipresence  of  the  Man,  but  when  the  God  is 
present,  that  is  when  Christ's  Godhead  is  workmg  within  us,  to 
subdue  our  sins,  and  to  "  deaden  the  deeds  of  the  body"  (v. 
13).    **  But  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  b.ody  is  dead  because  of 
sin."    Pitiful  views  of  Christ  as  a  Pagan  Second  Person,  and 
pitiful  views  of  the  Spirit  as  the  Platonic  Third  Person,  and 
pitiful  views  of  "righteousness"  as  being  an  affair  of  court, 
are  very  apt  to  breed  a  miserable  letting  down  of  all  the  great 
principles  of  the  inspired  oracles.     What  is  the  death  of  ''the 
body  I "     And  moreover  "the  body  "  is  not  "  dead;  "  it  is  the  last 
thing  to  die  in  this  splendid  history  of  our  being.    Moreover  it 
is  the  yoking  of  the  mule  with  the  horse  to  talk  of   "  the  body 
(being)    dead  because  of  sin"   and   '*  the  spirit  life  because  of 
righteousness."     This  very  linking  should  keep  us  straight  in 
these  particulars.     To  say 

1 1 .  But  if  the  Spirit  of  Him  who  raised  Jesus  from  among- 
the  dead  dwell  in  you,  He  who  raised  Christ  Jesus  from 
among  the  dead  shall  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  also 
through  His  Spirit  dwelling  in  you, 

and  then  to  translate  the  whole  as  though  it  were  of  a  rismg  out 
of  Joseph's  tomb,  is  to  forget,  first  of  all,  that  all  rise,  saint  no 
more  certainly  than  sinner  ;  to  forget,  again,  that  Paul  is  in  the 
midst  of  a  great  forthright  line  of  spiritual  argumentation,  and 
to  forget,  thirdly,  that  mere  body-raising  is  not  the  great  work 
of  "  a  Spirit  of  Christ"  and  the  raising  itself,  whether  of  His 
body  or  ours,  is  but  a  slender  part  of  the  fact  of  our  redemp- 
tion.    We  would  have  less  to  say  in  the  way  of  complaint  if 


CHAPTER   VIII.  241 

Paul  had  not  been  so  careful.  He  has  given  us  no  end  of 
light  upon  these  physical  illustrations.  "  Fiesh  "  has  become 
almost  technical.  And  to  give  more  body  to  it,  that  is  to  give 
it  more  the  look  of  a  strong  and  well  centered  organization, 
Paul  calls  "  t/ie  flesh  "  "  ^/le  body  "  (6  :  6  ;  7  :  24  ;  Col.  2:11), 
meaning  infinitely  far  from  our  mere  organized  clay,  but  all 
our  most  refined  tastes  and  all  our  most  elevated  worldliness 
which  is  not  patterned  after  the  Spirit  of  the  Almighty.  It  is 
a  great  luxury  to  bring  all  these  lights  together,  and  to  show 
by  unbounded  evidence  the  spiritual  sense  of  "  the  body:' 

If  Christ  be  said  to  be  ''  in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin  " 
(v.  3),  that  being  understood  to  mean  in  the  likeness  of  our 
whole  nature,  what  madness  to  look  back  upon  ''the  body  of 
sin''  (6  :  6),  or  in  fact  upon  any  of  that  whole  context,  and 
imagine  that  '^  the  body  "  and  ''  the  flesh  "  ought  not  to  have  cor- 
responding  interpretations,  ^wi  \i '' the  body  of  sin  {ht'mg)  de- 
stroyed'' (E.  V.)  means,  as  Paul  expounds  it,  ''that  we  hence- 
forth  should  no  more  serve  sin,"  how  unwarrantable,  when  we 
come  upon  the  expression  again,  to  say  that  "  the  body  (being) 
dead  because  of  sin  "  means  that  our  clay  is  dead  ;  when,  in  the 
first  place,  our  clay  is  not  "  dead ;  "  when,  in  the  second  place, 
our  "flesh  "  in  Paul's  sense  of  the  word  "  is  dead ;"  when,  in 
the  third  place,  it  is  dead  quoad  "  the  flesh  "  even  in  the  Chris- 
tian ;  when,  in  the  fourth  place,  it  is  balanced  against  so  high 
an  idea  as  that  the  spirit  is  life,  and  when,  in  the  fifth  place, 
*'  the  body  "  as  not  "  the  flesh  "  in  the  Paulinian  or  higher  sense, 
would  drop  the  thought  quite  out  of  the  line  of  argument  ;  for 
"  the  body  (being)  dead  because  of  sin,"  if  counted  as  our  fleshly 
nature,  and  "the  spirit  (being)  life  because  of  ri^^hteousness"  if 
counted  as  our  new  man,  fit  exactly,  and  are  all  that  can  re- 
deem the  passage  from  creating  a  break  in  the  chain  of  rea- 
soning. 

This  view  will  strengthen  as  we  proceed. 

**  But  if  the  Spirit  of  Him  who  raised  Jesus  from  among 

the  dead."     There  are  certain  passages  of  the  Scripture  with 

which  the  current  theology  never  grapples.  Why  is  Christ  called 

"  The  first  begotten  from  among  the  dead  ?  "     He  was  not  the 


242  ROMANS. 

first  to  rise.  Why  is  He  called  "  the  first  fruits  of  them  that 
slept  ?  "  Why,  in  this  passage,  is  He  said  to  be  "  raised  from 
among  the  dead  ?  "  No  commentator  ever  notices  this.  And 
yet  there  is  a  method  in  the  speech  which  long  ago  should 
have  claimed  a  signification.  On  the  base  of  the  body  no 
meaning  can  be  shown.  Christ  was  raised  long  after  the  Shu- 
namite's  son,  and  months  after  Lazarus.  But  if  we  hold  it  as 
meaning  that  Christ  was  cursed  (Gal.  3  :  13)  ;  that  He  was  a 
child  of  Adam  ;  that  He  was  tainted  by  Adam's  blood  in posse^ 
and  unless  kept  off  by  God  through  covenanted  grace,  in  esse^ 
as  an  heir  with  all  the  children  of  Adam  ;  that  He  was,  there- 
fore, "infirm"  (Heb.  5  :  2),  and  temptible  (Heb.  2  :  18),  and 
davaTudelg  according  to  another  apostle,  that  is,  given  over 
to  ^^  death  "  as  far  as  ^^  the  flesh''  is  concerned,  and  "  quickened 
(only)  by  the  Spirit  "  (i  Pet.  3  :  18)  ;  then  all  this  lies  under 
sun-light.  He  was  "  raised  from  a?fio?ig  the  dead  "  in  the  most 
intelligible  sense.  Men  dead  in  sin  lay  all  around  Him.  He 
was  "  the  first  begotten  from  among  the  dead;  "  not  in  time,  for 
Enoch  rose  out  of  sin  before  Him  ;  but  in  the  order  of  nature. 
He  had  to  be  arranged  for  first,  that  any  might  be  begotten 
afterward.  And  this  language  He  thoroughly  approves  ;  for 
what  sentence  could  be  more  humiliating  than  this  :  "  Who  in 
the  days  of  His  flesh,  when  He  had  offered  up  prayers  and  sup- 
plications with  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  Him  that  was  able 
to  save  Him  from  death,  and  was  heard  in  that  He  feared  " 
(Heb.  5  :  7)? 

"  Body'*  therefore  means  the  **  old  man  "  with  all  his  organ- 
ized tastes  and  powers.  When,  therefore,  Paul  says  that 
"  Christ  "  may  be  ''in  "  us,  and  nevertheless  our  '*  body  (be)  dead 
because  of  sin,''  he  means  that  we  have  an  "  old  man  "  that 
would  take  possession  of  us  again  if  the  Spirit  left  us.  The 
Peter  with  his  "I  go  a  fishing  "  would  never  come  back  to 
Christ  if  left  to  his  ''dead  body."  Paul  had  remembered  this 
when  he  said,  "  Ye  are  ?iot  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit,"  yet 
had  put  it  on  the  lowest  ground,  ''If  even  a  Spirit  of  God  have 
got  so  7nuch  as  a  Iodg?nent  in  you  "  (v.  9).  The  whole  organized 
"flesh"  remains,  and  he  calls  it  a  "body."     He  calls  it  in  this 


CHAPTER   VIII.  243 

passage,  ''the  dead  body  ;"  in  the  sixth  chapter,  ''the  body  of 
sin  "  (6  :  6);  soon  after,  "  the  body  of  this  death  "  (7  :  24);  then 
presently  he  is  to  speak  of  "  deadefii/i^  tJw practices  of  the  body  "; 
and  afterward  of  "  the  redemption  of  our  body,"  which  we 
are  yet  to  explain  ;  and  then,  in  Colossians,  of  " puttim^  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  ;  "  and  finally  oi  quickening  our  "  mor- 
tal bodies''  These  are  all  of  this  same  apostle  ;  and  he  must  be 
a  stiff  exegete  who  refuses  to  say,  that  Paul  illustrates  by  "the 
body"  the  sum  total  of  our  carnal  nature.  "  Because  of  sin.** 
That  is  the  very  essence  of  death.  "Because  of  righteous- 
ness.** That  is  the  very  essence  of  "life.**  It  is  indeed  a 
very  meagre  "  righteousness^''  and  a  very  struggling  and  incipient 
"life."  But  such  is  the  very  idea  of  Paul.  The  **  new  man  " 
has  a  powerful  ally.  If  Yi^  gets  a  lodgment  {oIkel),  we  must  treat 
Him  shamefully,  or  He  will  grow.  "If  the  Spirit  of  Him  icho 
raised  Jesus  from  a?nong  the  dead  (oIkei)  dwell  in  you,  He  who 
raised  Christ  Jesus  from  among  the  dead,**  and  did  it  per- 
fectly, so  as  to  "quicken  (His)  ?nortal  body"  that  is,  give  life  to 
His  "flesh"  though  it  would  have  been  by  nature  "  dead"  will 
"also  quicken"  yours,  though  not  perfectly  as  with  Him,  but 
partially,  by  the  lodgfncnt  of  the  Spirit,  who  begins  at  once  the 
conflict  for  us. 

•  The  phrase  "mortal  body*'  is  singularly-well  chosen.  As  it 
is  to  be  inclusive  of  Christ,  vf/cpov,  or  "dead"  would  not  answer. 
His  (Tw//a  ox  fleshly  nature  was  never  "dead"  but  horribly 
"mortal."  It  was  chased  by  death,  that  is,  pressed  awfully 
by  sin,  as  the  very  essence  of  His  sacrifice.  "He  who  raised 
Hi tn  from  among  the  dead"  that  is,  away  from  falling  into  sin, 
and  not  only  kept  Him  sinless,  but  lifted  Him  at  last  from 
anything  "  mortal "  d^nd  by  that  is  meant  from  being  tempted  to 
transgress,  will  also  lift  us  up  (for  thus  far  we  have  little  else 
than  what  Paul  is  yet  to  call  a  "  hope  of  righteousness" 
Gal.  5  :  5),  and  will  raise  up  even  our  "flesh"  (and  by  that  is 
meant,  will  make  righteous  our  whole  man);  or,  in  the  meta- 
phor  of  Paul,  "will  quicken  (our)  mortal  bodies  also  by 
His  Spirit  that  dwells  in  us.**  Thus,  according  to  Paul, 
we  have  "the  old   man"  and   *' the   new  man."     The   "new 


244  ROMANS. 

man  "  is  nothing  more  than  a  better  conscience  ;  renovated 
indeed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  is  made  possible  by  redemption. 
That  spirit  ^^  is  life  because  of  righteousness  "  (v.  lo).  "  Rig/if- 
eousness  "  is  the  attribute  of  the  conscience,  and  nothing  gives  it 
but  the  Holy  Ghost  !  The  "  old  man  "  is  our  *'  body  of  death  "; 
and  we  long  to  be  rid  of  it.  Yet  it  has  all  our  peerless  treas- 
ures of  a  natural  kind.  This  splendid  creature,  with  its  taste 
and  intellect,  life  eats  in  upon  till  it  is  more  and  more  appro- 
priated by  the  Redeemer.  Paul  duplicates  his  picture  a  little 
afterward  ;  for  what  he  calls  here  life,  quickening  at  last  even 
our  dead  nature,  or,  the  whole  of  our  ''  old  man,"  that  is,  in 
present  tropical  description,  our  *'  77iortal  body,"  he  serves  up 
over  yonder  (v.  24)  as  the  subject  of  our  ^' hope."  He  says 
^^We  were  saved  in  the  shape  of  hope"  because  ^^ hope"  was 
among  our  chief  treasures  when  we  were  first  converted. 
Redemption  is  mainly  hoped  for  ;  for  the  largest  fruitage  of 
redemption  is  yet  to  be.  For  "//  we  hope  for  that  we  see 
not,  then  do  we  with  patience  wait  for  it."  And,  gathering  all 
his  *'  hope  "  into  one  expression,  he  uses  over  again  that  figure 
of  the  ^^body"  for  he  says,  '■^And  not  only  they"  (that  is  the 
suffering  ^^ creatures"),  "but  ourselves  also,  who  have  the  first 
fruits  of  the  Spirit "  (that  is  who  have  a  Spirit  merely  lodged 
within  us  as  a  base  from  which  to  fight  for  us),  "  even  we  our- 
selves groan  within  ourselves,  waiting  for  adoption,  to  wit,  the 
redemption  of  our  body"  (vs.  23,  24). 

'■'■The  body,"  therefore,  is  the  whole  man,  outside  of  grace, 
and  the  apostle  hopes  that  in  "  the  day  of  redemption  "  (Eph.  4  : 
30),  that  is,  the  day  par  excellence  entitled  to  the  name,  our 
^^ dead  body''  will  be  ''■raised,"  that  is  our  "old  man"  will  be 
filled  with  the  blessings  of  "  redemption." 

If  this  be  so,  we  ought  to  be  allies  of  this  struggling  grace. 
Paul  returns  to  the  idea  of  our  share  in  the  work  : — 

12.  Then,  therefore,  brethren,  we  are  debtors,  not  to 
the  flesh  to  live  after  flesh. 

The  battle  is  not  so  far  fought  that  we  can  win  if  we  desert. 

13.  For  if  ye  live  after  flesh,  ye  will  die ;  but  if  in  Spirit 
ye  deaden  the  practices  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live. 


CHAPTER    VIII.  245 

If  I  live,  it  is  not  I  that  live,  Paul  would  say,  but  Christ  that 
liveth  in  me  (Gal.  2  :  20).  The  raising  of  our  dead  nature  is 
not  only  by  Christ,  but  it  is  a  miracle  ;  and  Paul  would  have 
us  to  believe  that  it  is  the  most  God-like  act  that  Ciod  had  ever 
committed.  Indeed  he  sheds  a  kindred  light  upon  it  as  in  the 
present  passage.  He  would  have  us  *'  Know  what  is  the  ex- 
ceeding greatness  of  His  power  to  us-ward  who  believe," 
and  then  brings  in  immediately  the  case  of  Christ  ; — **  Which 
He  wrought  in  Christ  ;  "  and  then  falls  upon  the  same  idea  of 
Christ's  being  raised  up  from  among  the  spiritually  dead  and 
from  fleshly  ruin.  To  suppose  he  meant  His  clay  would  be 
singularly  weak.  His  grave  speech  betokens  what  Christ  calls 
''sanctification"  (Jo.  10:  ^d)^  "which  He  wrought  in  Christ 
when  He  raised  Him  from  among  the  dead,  and  set  Him  at 
His  own  right  hand  in  heavenly  things"  (Eph.  i  :   19,  20). 

And  yet,  for  all  that  this  is  so  the  work  of  the  Almighty, 
Paul  treats  it  as  though  it  were  our  own.  He  warns  as  if  it 
were  wholly  ours.  "If  ye  live  after  flesh,  ye  shall  die.'* 
Christ  Himself  was  warned  in  a  similar  manner  ; — "  If  I'hou 
wilt  walk  in  My  ways  and  if  Thou  wilt  keep  My  charge,  then 
Thou  shalt  also  judge  My  house,  and  shalt  also  keep  My 
courts,  and  I  will  give  Thee  companions  among  them  that 
walk  with  Thee  "  (Zech.  3  :  7).  This  mingling  of  God's  will 
with  man's  will  is  quite  intelligible  ;  for  it  is  on  man's  will  that 
God's  will  must  operate  ;  and  it  is  by  such  words  as  those  of 
Paul  that  God,  here  called  ''the  Spirit,"  operates  upon  man  in 
the  work  of  redemption.  "If  in  Spirit  ye  deaden  the  prac- 
tices of  the  body,  ye  shall  live."  Mortal  could  give  glory 
to  his  Maker  no  more  enthusiastically  than  Paul,  and  yet  he 
says,  "  I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  subjection, 
lest,  having  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be  a  cast- 
away "  (i  Cor.  9  :  27). 

"In  Spirit.*'  It  must  be  in  the  region  of  a  renovated  con- 
science. Nay,  it  must  be  as  conscience  itself  {dative)  that 
the  deadening  work  must  go  on.  The  inward  man,  being 
renewed,  makes  the  outward  man  perish.  "  Deaden ;"  ^avarc^w. 
We  must  give  up  these  **  practices  "  to  die.     This  Greek  never 


246  ROMANS. 

means  to  kill  (E.  V.,  2  Cor.  6  :  9),  and  it  never  means  to  "j>«/ 
to  death''  (E.  V.,  Matt.  10  :  21).  It  means  to  deliver  over  to 
die,  or  to  make  a  dead  man  of  a  person,  forensically  or  from  the 
certainty  of  his  dying.  An  observance  of  this  would  have 
.saved  a  very  important  passage.  Peter  does  not  say,  ''  Being 
put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit "  (E.  V., 
I  Pet.  3  :  18),  but  he  says,  "  Made  a  dead  man  of  as  to  the 
flesh,  but  made  alive  by  the  Spirit," — language  which  perfectly 
describes  our  exalted  Head.  To  make  all  this  certain,  let  us 
examine  the  Bible,  eavaroo)  occurs  eleven  times  in  the  New 
Testament  writings.  When  Paul  says,  "  For  thy  sake  are  we 
killed  all  the  day  long  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.,  Rom.  8  :  36),  this  Irish- 
English  reveals  the  mistranslation.  He  uses  the  word  in  two 
other  cases,  one,  "  Ye  were  made  dead "  (7  :  4),  which  we 
have  already  considered  ;  and  the  other,  "  chastened  and 
not  killed"  (E.  V.  &  Re.,  2  Cor.  6  :  9),  obviously  meaning, 
"  chastened  but  not  delivered  over  to  death."  The  six  other 
cases  are  found  in  the  Gospels,  and  are  applied  to  Christ  and 
His  persecuted  people.  The  chief  priests  took  counsel 
together  "to  hand  Him  over  to  death"  (Matt.  26  :  59;  17  : 
I  ;  Mar.  14  :  55),  for,  "to  put  Him  to  death  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.) 
was  distinctly  forbidden.  And  then  "  some  of  (the  disciples) 
should  they  cause  to  be  put  to  death  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.,  Luke  21  : 
16).  "And  the  children  shall  rise  up  against  their  parents, 
and  cause  them  to  be  put  to  death  "  (Matt.  10  :  21;  Mar.  13  : 
12).  We  are  so  particular  about  this  word  because  we  shall 
meet  it  in  other  cases.  We  give  over  the  ''Jles/i  "  to  die  when 
we  yield  to  the  Spirit.  "  The  practices  of  the  body "  is 
another  demonstration  that  it  is  not  the  clay  Paul  is  speaking 
of  either  in  the  case  of  Christ  or  His  people. 

14.  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  a  Spirit  of  God,  they 
are  sons  of  God. 

The  word  davardcj  seemed  to  require  some  such  comfort  as 
this.  If  we  can  only  "  deaden  "  our  "-flesh,"'  or,  using  another 
metaphor,  crucify  it  (Gal.  5  :  24),  and  hang  it  up  to  die, 
where  is  our  safety  ?     We  have  none  actually,  Paul  would  say. 


CHAPTER   VIII.  247 

And  yet  we  are  not  all  adrift.  The  forces  of  nature  are 
stronger  than  the  forces  of  grace,  at  least  so  far  as  this,  that 
the  thinking  of  the  flesh  exceeds  the  thinking  of  the  Spirit  (Phil. 
2  :  21).  Faith,  which  is  another  term  of  the  apostle,  Christ 
said  was  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed.  To  look  on  at  the  fight, 
tacticians  would  predict  our  overthrow.  But  Paul  introduces 
an  element  of  sonship.  Love  is  weak  in  the  believer,  but  it 
is  strong  in  the  Almighty.  And  though  the  threat,  ^^If  ye 
live  after  flesh  ye  shall  die  ^''  would  seem  to  have  been  fulfilled 
already,  yet  the  mere  locl^ment  (otx;?mr,  v.  11)  of  the  Spirit  has 
vast  weight.  We  must  utterly  quench  Him,  or  He  will  continue 
to  help.  And  this  Paul  assures  us  of  under  the  image  of  a 
son. 

15.  For  ye  did  not  receive  a  spirit  of  bondage  again  to 
fear,  but  ye  received  a  spirit  of  adoption  wherein  we  cry 
Abba,  Father. 

We  have  no  saintship  at  all  unless  we  are  converted.  But 
conversion  is  so  miserable  a  thing,  and  we  begin  so  low  down 
that  we  would  still  be  without  hope,  unless  we  saw  breaking  in 
upon  our  conscience  these  evidences  of  affection. 

16.  The  Spirit  itself  bears  witness  with  our  spirit  that  we 
are  children  of  God. 

Christ  particularly  tells  us  that  "He  (the  Spirit)  shall  not 
speak  of  Himself,"  and  that  unnoticed  sentence  means  that  the 
Spirit  does  not  tell  us  anything  ;  that  is,  that  God  does  not 
make  fresh  communications  when  He  converts  a  heart.  Christ 
tells  us,  "  What  He  shall  hear,  that  shall  He  speak  ;"  and  that 
most  reasonable  sentence  frowns  upon  all  sights  and  voices 
and  actual  words  in  the  heart  of  a  sinner.  Where  God  enters 
a  soul  *'  What  He  hears,"  that  is  (in  that  quaint  language) 
what  He  finds  there  of  previous  intelligence.  He  warms  into  life. 
God,  in  this  work,  chooses  to  call  Himself  a  Holy  Breath,  and 
what  He  imparts  is  really  only  holiness  ;  that  is  He  warms  into 
life  our  already  possessed  truth  and  gospel.     God's  "  Spirit" 


248  ROMANS. 

and  "  our  Spirit "  is  our  conscience  (Jo.  4  :  24;  *  i  Cor.  14  :  25; 
see  also  Gal.  2  :  20).  And  His  "  Spii'it''  witnesses  with  '■'■our 
spirit  that  we  are  children  of  God,"  not  by  telling  us, 
Thou  art  my  begotten  son,  but  by  mending  our  conscience, 
and  making  us  feel  that  some  power  is  at  work  in  our  behalf. 
"  Ye  did  not  receive  a  spirit  of  bondage  again  to  fear," 
though  that  even  was  the  Spirit  of  the  xA^lmighty,  and  its  des- 
perate struggles  were  His  preliminary  work  (7  :  23,  24),  but  ye 
see  work  achieved  and  '^  flesh  "  conquered.  Your  conscious- 
ness reveab  the  change.  It  may  be  very  weak,  and  you  may 
lose  it  (Matt.  13:  21),  for  it  is  but  a  "  taste  "  of  God's  gra- 
ciousness  ;  but  still  He  will  hold  you  fast,  and  He  will  save  you, 
unless  you  trample  Him,  and  this  holding  fast,  though  you  sin, 
convinces  you  of  His  kind  heart,  and  is  really  that  "  Spirit  of 
adoption  wherein  we  cry  Abba,  Father." 

17.  But  if  children,  also  heirs,  heirs  of  God,  but  joint 
heirs  with  Christ,  if  we  even  suffer  with  Him,  that  we  may 
also  be  glorified  together. 

Jesus  Christ  is  a  man  with  the  one  personal  Jehovah  incar- 
nated in  Him.  That  word  incarnated  means  not,  wildly,  that 
God  became  man  transmutedly  and  in  a  downright  way,  but, 
taking  that  word  incar7iated  or  infleshed  in  its  more  Pauline 
meaning,  that  the  Holy  God  became  personally  one  with  the  ahp^ 
{^^  flesh  "),  technically  so  called,  of  the  blessed  Redeemer.  If 
the  Redeemer  was  ''born  of  the  flesh,"  and,  according  to  His 
own  doctrine,  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  "  (Jo. 
3  :  6),  then  being  "born  of  the  Spirit"  in  His  case  was  what 
there  was  in  being  born  of  God.  It  was  not  a  common  influx 
of  the  Spirit,  but  an  impersonate  condition  of  the  Godhead. 
The  Spirit  was  given  to  Him  (Jo.  3  :  34)  without  measure. 
God  Himself  was  begotten  within  Him.  And  as  this  was 
Christ's  only  birth,  and   He   was  generate,  instead  of  being 

*  The  Greek  here  should  not  be  reversed.  Middleton  himself  covers  the 
case  with  his  exceptions  (see  also  Jelf,  Gram.,  §.  460,  2).  They  that  worship 
must  worship  in  spirit.  And  to  enforce  that,  John  seats  God  in  our  con- 
science just  as  we  have  claimed.  "Spirit  is  God  "  (see  com.  i:  9,  also  i 
Tim.  6  :  5). 


CHAPTER   VI IT.  249 

regenerate,  of  God,  the  great  fruit  was  holiness.  God's 
great  wealth  is  holiness.  Of  course  it  is  man's  great  gift. 
And  as  sinfulness  is  that  bottomless  pit  (Mar.  3  :  29,  Re.), 
in  which  we  sink  forever  unless  delivered,  we  can  under- 
stand the  words  of  the  apostle,  "  For  as  many  as  are  led 
by  a  Spirit  of  God  they  are  sons  of  God ;  but  if  children, 
also  heirs,"  heirs  of  the  greatest  thing  that  God  can 
possess ;  children  through  the  very  loins  of  God  ;  heirs 
through  the  very  birth  of  Christ  ;  lost,  without  His  Godhead, 
and  saved  by  that  Godhead's  fruit  ;  nothing,  without  the  gift 
of  holiness,  but,  with  that  gift,  "  heirs  of  God,  but  joint  heirs 
with  Christ;"  for  Christ  Himself  is  nothing  without  His  God- 
head. Isaiah,  on  any  other  base  than  that,  almost  ridicules 
Him  ;  calls  Him  a  "  worm  "  (Is.  41  :  14);  speaks  of  Him  as 
**  an  abomination  "  (Is.  41  :  24)  ;  calls  "  His  sword  dust "  and 
calls  **  His  bow  stubble  "  (Is.  41  :  2) ;  says  He  conquered  by 
ways  His  feet  had  never  actually  travelled  (Is.  41  :  3)  ;  and 
He  Himself  says,  '*  (I)  can  do  nothing  of  (myself)  "  (Jo.  5  : 
19);  and  is  predicted  of  in  this  strange  soliloquy  :  ''I  am  a 
worm  and  no  man,  a  reproach  of  men  and  despised  of  the 
people  "  (Ps.  22  :  6).  But,  with  the  Spirit,  and  that  in  a 
method  of  oneness  never  before  known,  "  the  Lord  (who)  is 
that  Spirit"  (2  Cor.  3  :  17)  bestows  upon  Him  the  thing  which 
is  that  which  is  most  glorious  in  Himself.  He  makes  Him 
righteous.  Through  him  He  makes  others  righteous.  And 
who  then  can  fail  of  the  sense,  *'  If  c/ii/dren,  also  heirs,  heirs  of 
God,  but  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  if  we  even  suJfer  with  Him, 
that  we  may  also  be  glorified  together  ?  " 

Christ,  as  a  man,  though  a  worm,  helped  Himself,  just  as  we 
all  must  do,  though  saved  by  the  Spirit.  His  self-help  came 
w^ith  the  result  of  suffering,  just  as  it  must  come  to  all  of  us  ; 
for  we  are  told  by  the  apostle,  "  We  must  through  much  tribu- 
lation enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  (Acts  14:  22).  This 
needs  to  be  very  plain.  Christ's  sufferings  were  "  unto  blood, 
striving  against  sin"  (Heb.  12  :  4).  This  was  His  sacrifice. 
He  endured  a  thousand  deaths  conquering  temptation  ;  and  as 
He  won  the  victory,  His  sufferings  turned  out  all  innocent,  and 


250  ROMANS. 

He  was  able  to  hand  them  over  as  a  sacrifice  for  His  people. 
But  Paul  says,  we  have  sufferings  also.  He  speaks  of  "  filling 
up  that  which  is  behind  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ "  (Col.  i  : 
24)  ;  and  in  the  present  passage  he  expounds  that  perfectly. 
Christ's  forensic  object  was  to  atone  for  men.  Christ's  per- 
sonal object  was  to  **  learn  obedience  "  (Heb.  5  :  8).  He 
never  sinned  ;  but  He  was  horridly  tempted.  His  object  was 
to  get  rid  of  temptation.  This  is  turned  over  in  the  Scriptures 
in  many  clarifying  lights.  He  was  sanctified  (Jo.  10  :  2^6). 
He  was  made  righteous  (i  Tim.  3  :  16).  He  was  redeemed 
(Heb.  9  :  12).  He  was  saved  (Zech.  9  :  9,  see  Heb.).  As 
the  form  in  which  He  was  to  be  glorified,  it  pleased  God  "  to 
make  the  captain  of  our  salvation  perfect  through  suffering  " 
(Heb.  2  :  10).  He  was  "made  perfect  "  (Heb.  5:9);  not 
that  He  was  ever  sinful,  but  that  that  could  not  be  considered 
the  highest  shape  of  obtainable  perfection  which  had  to  writhe 
in  anguish  through  a  ceaseless  fight  with  iniquity.  Now  our 
sentence  may  be  made  plain.  We  have  not  to  redeem  any- 
body, and  we  are  anything  else  than  sinless.  But  on  this  very 
account  Paul  puts  in  that  word  eiVep.  It  is  one  of  the  six  cases 
in  the  whole  New  Testament  (see  comment  v.  9).  For  the 
very  reason  that  we  are  so  awfully  carnal  (i  Cor.  3  :  3,  4),  and 
sin  so  much  (Ec.  7  :  20),  and  that  it  is  so  hard  to  show  as  to 
^' the  thinking  of  the  flesh  (v.  6)  just  where  and  in  what  degree 
the  saint  differs  from  the  world,  Paul  twrns  again  to  that  little 
particle.  For  just  as  it  had  been  said,  "  If  ye  have  even 
so  much  (ciTTfp)  as  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious  "  (i  Pet.  2  : 
3)  ;  and  as  Paul  had  said,  "  If  even  (elTrep)  a  Spirit  of  God 
[piKti)  has  a  lodgment  in  you  "  (v.  9),  so  now  he  says,  not  if  ye  be 
perfect,  or  not  even  if  ye  be  prevailingly  spiritual,  but  "  //  we 
even  (e'nrep)  suffer  with  Him,''  that  is,  if  the  Spirit  has  a  lodg- 
ment in  us,  and  we  enter  into  that  desperate  fight  that  He 
waged  with  His  temptations. 

Do  notice  one  thing  : — That  fight  always  conquers.  **  Re- 
sist the  devil,  and  he  will  flee  from  you."  That  sinner  who, 
as  with  the  Trojan  horse,  has  the  Spirit  within  his  citadel,  no 
matter  in  how  miserable  a  corner  he  keeps  it,  yet  if  he  will  not 


CHAPTER   VIII.  251 

thwart  it,  but  will  begin  to  ''suffer  with  Christ,'^  and  take  up 
His  cross  and  resist,  may  dismiss  fear.  "  Hoc  signo  vices  " 
is  written  on  his  sky.  And  however  desperate  the  fight,  like 
his  blessed  Redeemer,  he  will  be  "•  fuade perfect ^ 

18.  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time 
are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  that  shall 
be  manifested  to  us-ward. 

This  is  self-evident,  and  needs  no  comment.  If  Christ  could 
"see  of  the  travail  of  His  soul  and  be  satisfied,"  assuredly 
we  can.  "  Compared  "  need  hardly  have  been  put  in  italics 
(E.  v.);  for  though  h^ia  means  only  "worthy,"  yet  the  pre- 
position implies  the  contrast. 

19.  For  the  eager  looking  of  the  creation  expects  the 
manifesting  of  the  sons  of  God. 

The  language  means  "  looking "  with  head  intent.  Y^riaiq 
has  had  almost  every  exposition.  It  cannot  mean  "  the  crea- 
ture " — "the  old  man,"  for  it  is  set  in  opposition  not  to  "the 
new  man,"  but  to  the  saints.  It  cannot  mean  sinners,  for  it 
says  they  shall  be  "made  free"  (v.  21).  It  cannot  mean 
the  material  world,  for  it  is  too  serious  for  that ;  nor  can  it 
mean  the  whole  world,  for  that  would  include  the  saints.  It 
cannot  mean  the  whole  universe,  for  that  is  not  made  subject 
to  vanity.  It  seems  most  consistently  to  mean  the  whole 
world  outside  of  its  people.  That  would  not  imply  that  the 
animals  that  have  ever  lived  are  to  be  "  made  free''  and  glori- 
fied. It  might  be  true,  though  we  know  nothing  in  that 
direction.  If  the  chalk  cliffs  are  to  be  restored  to  life,  they 
would  require  half  a  planet  for  room  to  live  in.  We  know 
literally  nothing.  All  that  it  is  necessary  to  suppose  is,  that 
this  whole  globe,  which,  long  before  man,  by  its  spectacles  of 
death  seemed  to  be  a  token  of  his  coming,  will  be  renewed 
when  he  is  renewed  ;  that  the  old  star  will  break  out  in  new 
forms  of  life  ;  that  the  golden  age  will  at  last  be  realized  ;  that 
the  fountain  of  perpetual  youth,  which  we  expect  for  ourselves, 
may  be  realized  for  brutes;  that  "  we,  according  to  His  promise, 
look  for  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  ;  "  and  that  while,  with 


252 


ROMANS. 


us,  our  great  heirship  with  Christ  will  be,  that  therein  shall 
dwell  righteousness  (2  Pet.  3  :  13),  the  whole  '''•creation''  shall 
have  something  to  expect  in  "the  manifesting  of  the  sons 
of  God." 

20.  For  the  creation  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  not 
willingly,  but  on  His  account  who  subjected  it,  21.  With 
a  ground  for  hope  that  the  creation  itself  also  shall  be 
set  free  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  liberty 
of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God. 

"  Not  willingly."  How  does  this  agree  with  the  argument 
that  an  appetite  for  a  thing  is  a  pledge  of  its  acquisition  ? 
Does  a  brute  acquire  immortality?  "But  on  His  account." 
On  account,  of  God.  For  the  sake  of  carrying  out  His  grand 
administrations.  Whether  it  be  God,  or  whether  it  be  Christ,  is 
not  a  question  :  God  is  in  Christ.  Our  great  triumph  is  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  God.  He  is  the  first  born.  All  things  else 
were  begotten  in  Him.  ^'  Along  with  Him  were  all  things 
created  (Col.  i  :  16,  rf<d  of  accompaniment);  not  along  with 
Him  in  time,  for  He  was  not  born  till  long  afterward  ;  but 
along  with  Him  in  the  bundle  of  the  decree.  He  was  to  be 
far  above  principality  and  power,  and,  therefore,  the  universal 
whole  was  schemed  to  suit  Him.  He  was  the  central  Per- 
sonage ages  before  Him.  To  express  it  differently,  in  the 
order  of  plan  "  He  was  before  all  things"  (Col.  i  :  17  ;  see 
also  Jo.  I  :  30  ;  Rev.  13  :  8).  "  All  things  stood  together  in 
Him"  (ib.).  In  fact.  He  is  more  than  God,  for  He  is  the 
plenary  God  and  that  Sacrificial  Man  that  is  necessary  to  the 
world's  redemption. 

22.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groans  and 
has  birth-pangs  together  until  now. 

This  ought  to  soften  us  toward  brutes,  for  it  is  our  fault, 
not  theirs,  that  they  have  a  life  of  suffering.  If  it  is  a  new 
fauna  that  is  to  be  blest,  the  old  can  have  no  compensation. 

23.  But  not  only  so,  but  even  ourselves  also,  who  have 
the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan 
within  ourselves,  waiting  for  adoption,  to  wit,  the  re- 
demption of  our  body. 


CHAPTER   VIJL 


253 


**  Not  only  so."  Not  only  is  the  earth,  which  has  been 
cursed  by  man,  to  be  renovated,  and  that  on  the  judgment 
day,  ^'  the  Jay  of  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God''  (v.  19), 
but  the  earthy  part  of  these  "  sons  "  is  to  be  renovated  also. 
Only  the  wicked  are  to  perish.  In  this  world  adoption  is  a 
f/uasi  and  singular  thing.  And,  therefore,  the  Bible  uses  the 
words  over  again  for  the  great  hereafter.  **  Brethren,  now 
are  ye  the  sons  of  (iod  "  (i  Jo.  3:2);  and  yet  listen  to  Paul 
when  he  speaks  of  "  waiting  for  adoption."  ''  Now  ye  are 
clean,"  says  Christ,  but  the  very  s|)eaker  had  ages  to 
pass  before  He  could  "  present  (them)  without  spot  or  wrin- 
kle "  (Eph.  5.  27).  So  of  all  our  joyful  adjectives.  We  are 
*' redeemed  "  (i  Pet.  i  :  iS),  but  it  may  take  thousands  of 
years  to  speed  on  the  real  "day  of  redemption"  (Eph.  4  : 
30).  This  habit  of  the  Bible  is  almost  universal.  We  are 
'*  righteous  "  (Lu.  i  :  6),  and  undoubtedly  that  means  a 
brightening  of  our  conscience  ;  but  so  far  is  it  from  a  deserv- 
ing of  the  name,  that  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  throw  us  all 
back  in  strictness  of  speech  and  to  say,  "  We,  through  the 
Spirit,  wait  for  the  hope  of  righteousness  by  faith  "  (Gal.  5  :  5). 

And  so  in  the  present  passage.  First  of  all,  we  have  but 
"  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit."  Paul  has  been  full  of  those 
expressions.  We  are  "sealed"  by  the  Spirit  (Eph.  i  :  13). 
W^e  have  "  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance  "  (Eph.  i  :  14).  He 
treats  the  case  hypothetically  by  the  use  of  that  little  particle 
(elTTep),  "//"  the  Spirit  have  even  a  lodgment  in  you  "  (Rom.  8  :  9). 
And  Peter  takes  up  the  case  with  even  more  emphasis,  for  he 
calls  us  "  new-born  babes  ;"  he  recommends  to  us  "  milk  "  and 
not  strong  meat  ;  and  he  brings  in  that  word  elrrep  as  we  have 
seen,  and  he  describes  all  that  a  Christian  reaches  in  this  world 
by  the  expression,  "  If  ye  have  even  tasted  that  the  Lord  is 
gracious  "  (i  Pet.  2  :  3). 

This  makes  ail  our  passage  easy.  "  Ourselves  also  7C'ho  have 
the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,*'  and  who  have,  therefore,  a  huge 
"body"  of  ''■flesh,''  that  has  in  it  our  noblest  faculties,  yearn- 
ing like  the  solid  earth  for  some  relief,  "groan  within  o\M' 
SG\YeSy7i'aiting  for  adoption,"  \.\\dX  is  for  sure-enough  '' adop- 


254  ROMANS. 

tio n, "  tha.t  which  might  look  worth  while  in  a  divine  '^son;'* 
to  wit  (and  this  is  the  great  pregnant  portion  of  the  passage), 
to  wit,  the  enrighteousment  of  our  whole  selves  ;  to  wit,  the 
filling  with  the  Spirit  of  all  our  fleshly  tastes  ;  to  wit,  our  hav- 
ing a  "  spirit-body  "  where  now  we  have  a  ''soul-body;"  to 
wit  (i  Cor.  15  :  44),  our  appetites  being  attuned  to  a  Godly 
centre  of  our  life  ;  to  wit,  our  conscience  being  made  perfect ; 
to  wit,  our  "  old  man  "  being  destroyed  in  that  which  gives  it 
its  name,  and  having  "redemption'*  in  its  splendid  powers, 
our  "  whole  body  being  full  of  light  "  (Matt.  6  :  22). 

Some  would  put  in  the  word  "//^//"  before  the  word  "  adop- 
fio/iy"  and  their  reason  is  that  we  are  adopted  already  (v.  15), 
and  their  justification  is  that  though  adoption  is  the  common 
word,  yet  "  waiti?ig  "  has  more  in  it  than  mere  expectancy — that 
it  means  waiting  long  or  ''  waiting  "  the  time  outio  the  very  end. 
That  would  justify  ^'- fuir'  if  it  were  necessary,  or  if  it  agreed 
with  the  usage  of  Paul.  But  he  employs  this  same  word  to 
express  waiting  "  for  the  Saviour"  (Phil.  3  :  20),  or  waiting  for 
His  coming  (i  Cor.  i  17);  bespeaks  of  those  who  look  for  Him 
(Heb.  9  :  28),  which  advent  of  Christ  is  not  partial  now  and 
"/z///"  hereafter  ;  and  moreover,  as  we  have  abundantly  seen, 
"  adoption  "  and  ''  righteousness  "  and  "  life  "  and  "  cleansing  " 
and  "  redemption  "  are  all  spoken  of  in  this  double  way,  as 
though  they  all  belonged  to  us  now,  and  as  though  they  all 
came  to  us  fresh  in  the  day  of  Jesus. 

24.  For  we  were  saved  in  the  shape  of  hope— 

This  is  one  of  those  "  jyiatcrial  datives "  which  imply  the 
constitutive  substance  of  the  thing  talked  of.  "  By  faith  Abel 
offered  unto  God  a  more  acceptable  sacrifice  than  Cain " 
(Heb.  II  :  4).  His  faith  was  the  essence  of  the  sacrifice  (see 
Com.  on  6  :  10,  11).  "We  were  saved."  Notice  the  aorist. 
At  a  certain  date  in  the  past,  salvation  accrued  to  us,  but,  in 
signal  features,  it  was  "  in  the  shape  of  hope." 

24.— But  hope  seen  is  not  hope ;  for  what  he  sees,  who 
hopes  for  ? 

It  is  not  God  Almighty  that  we  shall  "see,"  or  heaven  in  any 


CHAPTER  VI  11.  255 

material  existence  other  than  this  planet.  We  know  not  where 
heaven  will  be  with  any  certainty.  And  when  we  point  up- 
ward we  are  only  gesticulating.  For  upward  does  not  mean 
the  same  thing  two  hours  together,  or  in  a  winter  or  a  sum- 
mer orbit  of  our  planet.  Perhaps  children  should  not  as  much 
imagine  a  heaven  "  up  in  the  sky."  Gabriel  does  not  see  God. 
He  sees  Him  morally,  and  that  is  the  meaning  of  our  text. 
When  the  Spirit  only  lodges  with  us  ;  when  we  are  only  sealed 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  when  we  have  the  earnest  and  the  hpxTj 
(Heb.  6  :  i),  and  the  '' first  fruits''  only  of  eternal  life  ;  when 
we  have  only  so  much  as  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious,  then 
*^  we  are  saved  (only)  ///  t/ie  shape  of  hope  ;''  but  when  right- 
eousness bursts  forth  ;  when  the  whole  body  of  sin  is  re- 
deemed ;  when  God  "  appears  "  as  John  calls  it,  and  we  become 
like  Him,  because  in  John's  ethical  account  of  it  we  see  Him  as 
He  is,  then  all  this  text  is  made  clear.  "  Hope  that  is  seen,  is 
not  hope."  Our  poor  little  piety  that  sees  very  little,  is  the 
seed  of  '*  hope."  **  What  he  sees,  who  hopes  for?"  If  we 
saw  God  in  His  purity,  we  would  be  \)iist 'Wiope."  Gabriel 
has  no  other  heaven  but  that.  The  *'  faith  (that)  is  sweetly 
lost  in  sight,"  is  that  which  David  longed  for  : — '*  One  thing 
have  I  desired  of  the  Lord,  that  will  I  seek  after,  that  I  may 
dwell  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  my  life,  to  behold 
the  beauty  of  the  Lord  and  to  enquire  in  His  temple  "  (Ps.  27  : 
4).  Heaven  will  bring  to  us  parts  and  powers  and  passions 
that  will  be  very  noble,  and  physical  ease  that  will  be  very 
sweet,  but  it  will  bring  to  us  no  sight  of  God  except  Christ, 
and  no' vision  of  the  "Livisible  King"  (i  Tim.  i  :  17)  except 
that  sight  of  His  holiness  which  will  make  us  like  Him,  and 
which  we  are  to  begin  now  to  seek  after  with  all  our  hearts. 

25.  But  if  we  hope  for  what  we  see  not,  we  wait  with  pa- 
tience. 

We  are  to  cultivate  the  right  sort  of  ^^  hope.''  We  are  to 
"  look  for  and  haste  unto  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God  "  (2 
Pet.  3  :  12)  ;  not  by  the  knife  of  the  suicide,  but  by  visions  of 
the  King.     And  we  are  to  have  long  endurance  in  our  gaze  ; 


256  ROMANS. 

for  "  hope  "  is  a  principle  of  courage  ;  and  **  if  we  hope  for 
what  we  see  not,  we  wait  with  patience." 

26.  And  likewise  also  the  Spirit  takes  hold  along  with 
our  weakness,  for  what  we  pray  for  we  know  not  as  we 
ought ;  but  the  Spirit  itself  makes  intercession  for  us,  with 
unutterable  groanings. 

"Likewise."  That  is,  in  the  same  line  of  eagerness  and 
hope.  "The  Spirit  also."  Not  simply  the  original  Spirit 
which  the  lost  have,  and  even  the  devil.  And  not  even  the 
Christian's  Spirit,  that  is,  original  conscience  sanctified  by  a 
spirit  of  grace.  For  this  much  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  is  not 
enough,  but  must  have  an  ally  outside  taking  hold  along  with 
the  grace  already  possessed.  But  the  Spirit  here  implied  is 
the  whole  glorious  God,  who  must  do  much  more  for  us,  or  we 
shall  yet  be  lost.  The  advance  of  this  sentence  is  that  the 
last  spoke  of  waitings  this  speaks  of  pushing,  and,  above  all,  by 
that  splendid  engine  of  advance,  the  exercise  of  prayer. 

The  obstacle  to  our  advance  is  "  our  weakness."  That 
simply  means  the  "  weak?iess  "  of  our  conscience.  It  exists  in 
hell.  The  fiends  are  so  weak  that  they  never  can  be  saved. 
The  world  was  equally  weak,  '^  For  when  we  were  yet  weak, 
Christ  died  for  us  "  (Rom.  5  :  6).  We  are  still  ''weak''  since 
the  death  of  our  Redeemer  ;  *'  for  what  the  law  could  not  do  in 
that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,''  Christ  has  done  by  His  di- 
vine efficiency,  and  now  (wonder  of  all)  we  are  stxWweak^  and 
this  brings  us  to  the  meaning  of  our  sentence. 

And  why  should  we  start  at  this  ?  Christ  was  weak.  Under 
the  cover  of  the  English  version  it  is  half  concealed  from  us 
that  He  was  compassed  about  with  "  weak7iess  "  (Heb.  5  :  2). 
And  it  was  "  weakness  "  of  conscience.  The  conscience  He 
would  have  derived  from  Mary  would  have  been  too  ^ceak  to 
hold  Him  up  from  sin,  but  the  Spirit  took  hold  along  with  His 
weakness  ;  that  is  His  glorious  Godhead  added  to  His  con- 
science enough  conscience  more,  barely  to  cope  with  His  temp- 
tations to  sin. 

We  see  then  what  ^^  our  weahiess  "  is.  It  is  not  a  weakness 
of  fiends,  for  we  are  men.     It  is  not  a  weakness  of  man  un- 


CHAPTER   I'll/.  257 

visited,  for  we  have  Christ.  It  is  not  a  weakness  of  the  ene- 
mies of  Christ,  for  we  are  His  friends.  And  yet,  alas  !  it  is  not 
the  weakness  of  Christ,  for  He  was  held  up  against  all  iniquity 
by  the  Spirit,  while  we  have  but  tasted  of  His  grace,  and  are  too 
weak  not  to  be  always  sinning. 

This  "  weakness  "  Paul  presents  in  the  same  magnificent 
way  in  which  he  presented  ''  n\'//teous/iess  "  (i  :  17).  It  is  a 
want  of  knowledge.  Just  as  "  righteousness  "  is  begotten  in  the 
soul  by  having  " ///^  righteousness  of  God  revealed,''  ^o  sin  is 
begotten  in  the  soul  by  having  "  the  righteousness  of  God''  hid- 
den. Paul  has  just  been  saying  that  "  if  we  hope  for  that  we 
see  not,  then  do  lue  with  patience  wait  for  it"  (E.  V.,  v.  26).  What 
troubles  the  saint  is  darkness.  And,  therefore,  in  that 
enginery  of  prayer  he  is  ever  ready  to  cry,  '*  We  cannot  order 
our  speech  by  reason  of  darkness  "  (Job  37  :  19).  Light, 
therefore,  is  the  great  cynosure  of  prayer.  And  the  difficulty 
of  prayer  is  that  I  do  not  "know**  the  great  thing  I  want  to 
ask  for.  If  I  knew  light  it  would  be  mine  already.  And, 
therefore,  Paul,  who  has  gone  into  the  same  reasonings  about 
sin,  and  said,  "What  I  do,  I  know  not"  (7  :  15),  gives  prayer 
the  same  magnificent  description.  The  only  thing  worth  pray- 
ing for  is  holiness  ;  and  the  difficulty  of  asking  for  it  is  that 
we  do  not  know  it.  If  we  knew  it,  we  need  not  ask.  But  God, 
who  knows  it  perfectly,  gets  into  our  hearts,  and,  as  a  Spirit, 
makes  intercession  within  us,  not  telling  us  anything,  that  is, 
not  adding  to  our  gospel  facts,  but  warming  what  we  have  into 
life,  making  our  thoughts,  so  far  as  they  are  utterable,  no 
different  from  before,  but  rousing  them  into  "unutterable '* 
sighings,  and  as  we  ask  for  knowledge,  giving  it  to  us,  making 
us  know  that  we  have  the  petitions  that  we  desire  of  Him, 
and,  whereas  in  "  our  weakness  "  as  believers  we  **  know  not  as 
we  ought**  the  gift  we  ask,  showing  it  to  us,  though  it  be 
"  unutterable"  as  the  very  way  of  giving  it. 

"  As  we  ought  "  belongs  to  knon'ing,  not  to  praying.  We  do 
know  holiness.  Even  Satan  knows  it  in  the  measure  of  his 
conscience.  But  we  do  not  know  it  "  as  [Kadb — in  the  measure 
that)  we  ought." 


258  ROMANS. 

The  Spirit  interceding,  that  is,  taking  hold  along  with  what 
conscience  we  have,  enlarges  the  circle  of  our  prayer,  and  in- 
stigates it  to  further  knowledge. 

27.  And  He  who  searches  the  heart,  knows  what  is  the 
thinking  of  the  Spirit,  because  it  makes  intercession  for 
the  saints  through  God. 

This  for  man  is  not  without  its  comfort.  It  is  a  simple  inti- 
mation. If  it  is  God  that  prays,  remember  that  it  is  God  that 
answers.  "  He  who  searches  the  heart  knows  what  is  the 
thinking  of  the  Spirit."  Surely  ;  for  it  is  Himself.  "Because 
it  makes  intercession  for  saints,"  not  in  words,  nor  in 
thoughts,  nor  in  utterances  distinguishable  from  the  con- 
science— not  in  syllabled  speech,  like  that  of  Balaam,  not 
in  things  ''unutterable''  (v.  26)  because  not  understood — 
but  by  "  the  exceeding  greatness  of  His  power  "  (Eph.  i  :  19) 
in  quickening  the  conscience,  and  giving  it,  warmer  and  clearer, 
the  moral  sense  that  is  possessed  even  by  the  wicked.  We 
call  ''the  Spirit'*  "it"  because  the  Scripture  calls  it  so  (Jo. 
14  :  17  ;  see  the  Greek).  In  this  particular  text  it  makes  the 
rhetoric  better.  The  Spirit  is  really  God  (2  Cor.  3  :  17). 
The  Spirit  in  unnumbered  cases  is  really  man  (Jo.  13  :  21  ;  i 
Cor.  14  :  15).  It  is  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  other  language. 
And  we  may  say  "if'  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  or  we  may  say  "He" 
(E.  V.  &  Re.),  without  endangering  His  proper  Deity. 

The  italics  in  the  sentence  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  are  more  than 
usually  unfortunate.  Kara  dehv  takes  in  no  more  "wilV  (E.  V. 
&  Re.)  than  any  other  attribute.  Power  and  love  and  wisdom 
are  just  as  operative.  God  as  a  totality  is  concerned  in 
prayer;  and  "through  God"  (see  i  Pet.  4:  6)  gives  us  to 
understand  that  as  Christ  was  David's  seed  "  through  flesh'* 
(1:3)  and  God's  seed  "  through  Spirit  "  (i  :  4),  so  prayer  is  made 
genuine  "  through  God,"  and  is  blessedly  answered  because  God 
is  in  it.  "For  saifits"  means  literally  "for  holy  people."  This  is 
for  the  same  convenience  of  brevity  as  the  words  *'  righteous  " 
or  "  those  who  love  God  "  (v.  28).  Who  loves  God  ?  These 
words  are  all  on  a  level,  ?nd  refer  to  that  slender  beginning  of 


CHAPTER   VIII.  259 

holiness  which  comes  from  a  mere  lodgment  of  the  Spirit  (v.  9), 
and  answers  to  that  expression  of  a  more  recent  text  which 
speaks  of  "  the  first  fruits  "  (v.  23)  of   that  power  in  sinners. 

28.  And  we  know  that  with  those  who  love  God  He 
works  as  to  all  things  for  good;  with  those  who  are 
the  called  according  to  a  purpose. 

The  best  MSS.  put  in  the  word  '*  God"  (o  0toc)  after  "works 
with,"  so  that  the  text  would  read,  "  Ciod  works  together  as 
to  all  things  for  good,  with  them  that  love  God."  If  we 
could  adopt  that  Greek,  there  would  be  no  doubt  about  the 
meaning.  But  while  the  MSS.  which  give  it  are  the  best 
(A  B  N),  those  which  do  not  give  it  are  the  most  (C  D  F  K  L). 
We  care  very  little,  however,  about  the  text ;  for  the  repetition 
of  the  word  "  God"  would  mar  the  rhetoric  of  the  sentence, 
and  that  "God"  is  meant  as  the  nominative  of  ''^ works"  is 
proved  in  two  particulars  :— first,  that  such  respectable  MSS. 
thought  so,  and,  second,  from  the  whole  cast  of  the  sense. 
Paul  is  stating  the  astonishing  nearness  of  the  Almighty.  He 
is  about  to  sum  it  up  presently  by  the  outcry,  "  If  God  be  for 
us,  who  can  be  against  us?"  (v.  31).  He  had  stated  it 
strongly  before  by  saying  that  Christ  was  in  us  (v.  10).  And, 
reasoning  forward  from  that,  he  has  said  that  God  is  so  within 
that  He  actually  prays  in  the  heart  of  the  believer  (v.  26);  so 
"  makes  intercession  "  within,  that  He  actually  knows  the  prayers 
because  they  are  His  own  (v.  27);  creating  a  philosophical 
provocation  to  say.  Yes,  and  He  not  only  prays  in  our  spirits, 
but  He  actually  does  everything  else  in  the  believer.  He  does 
not  commit  iiis  sins,  but  as  Paul  most  dexterously  phrases  His 
influence,  *' We  know,"  that  is,  it  is  a  corollary  of  our  being 
heirs  with  Christ,  '''•that  as  to  all  things  He  works  for  good  with 
them  that  love  God"  That  preposition  cw  {"icith  ")  reigns  in 
this  chapter.  We  are  "heirs  with  Christ"  ((n>yKlT]pov6fioi,  v.  17). 
**  IVe  suffer  icith  Him"  and  "are  glorified  together"  (still  aw, 
V.  17).  Presently  we  are  to  hear  that  we  are  to  be  "  confor?ned 
to  the  image  of  His  son  "  (E.  V.,  avfifidfuiMi,  v.  29).  Paul  tells  us 
that  we  are  "  quickened  together  with  Christ "  (E.  V.,  av;uoTrotiu. 


26o  ROMANS. 

Eph.  2:5;  Cor.  2  :  13),  referring  to  His  rising  as  we  rise  out 
of  the  grave  of  spiritual  ruin.  And  now  we  are  told  that  "  as 
to  all  thijigs  God  works  with  "  the  believer  (owepyEi)  even  more 
than  He  prays  with  him  (vs.  26,  27);  for  in  prayer  He  chiefly 
elevates  his  conscience,  but  in  more  secular  ''  t/n'ngs,"  He 
shapes  and  guides  him  ^' /or  good." 

No  sweeter  text  has  been  found  in  the  Bible  than  the  old 
(E.  v.);  no  truer;  or  more  legitimately  used,  if  it  were  the 
sense  !  But,  in  the  first  place,  "  all  things  [do  not]  work  " 
(E.  v.).  It  is  an  imperfect  rhetoric.  And,  in  the  second 
place,  God  does  '■^work"  and  in  a  most  glorious  sense,  ^^ along 
with  "  iavv)  each  fact  as  to  the  believer. 

"Called."  This  word  occurs  eleven  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament Greek  :  twice  with  Christ,  and  each  time  unfavorably, 
"  For  many  are  called,  but  few  chosen  "  (Matt.  20  :  16  ;  22  : 
14).  The  nine  other  cases  are  all  favorable.  Seven  of  them 
are  with  Paul,  and  one  each  with  Tude  and  John.  The 
meaning  must  be  settled  by  the  context.  Here  it  is  Kara 
Trpddeaiv.  When  a  man  lights  a  candle,  he  does  it  for  '*a  pur- 
pose" (Matt.  5  :  15).  When  a  man  cuts  a  stone,  he  does  it 
for  a  building  (i  Pet.  2  :  5).  When  God  is  working  with  a 
believer  as  to  all  things,  He  has  a  use  for  him.  ^'  That  in  me 
first,"  Paul  says,  "  Christ  might  show  forth  all  long  suffering  " 
(i  Tim.  I  :  16).  We  are  ''called"  therefore,  ** according  to '* 
a  scheme  (Trpddeaiv). 

29.  For  whom  He  did  foreknow,  them  He  also  planned 
out  beforehand  in  conformity  with  the  image  of  His  Son, 
that  He  might  be  a  first-born  among  many  brethren. 

This  text  is  strangely  dexterous.  The  word  "image"  is  a 
gem.  When  I  was  *  planned,"  Christ  was  "planned"  also. 
And  it  will  be  remarked  that  this  very  word  6p/C<J  is  used  first 
for  Paul  and  second  for  Christ,  in  this  very  epistle.  Paul  is 
said,  first  of  all,  to  be  ""  set  apart"  unto  the  Gospel  (cKpcopio/ahog, 
I  :  i),  and  then  Christ,  in  the  fourth  verse,  to  be  ''determined 
upon  as  God's  Son  "  {SpiodivTog},  the  Greek  being  absolutely  the 
same  except  in  respect  of  prepositions  (i  :   i,  4). 

Christ,  therefore,  having  been  "planned"  from  everlasting. 


CHAPTER   Vlir.  261 

was  the  most  illustrious  personage  with  the  Almighty  ;  in  fact, 
He  was  an  intended  Self*  in  a  coming  incarnation.  Hosts 
of  Scriptures  come  up  into  the  idea.  The  plan  of  Him  cen- 
tred all  other  plans.  The  thought  is  constantly  repeated.  He 
was  the  Alpha  (Rev.  i  :  8).  Cheops  was  hoary  with  age  when 
He  came  into  the  manger,  but  not  a  stone  of  it  was  laid  without 
a  reference  to  Him.  *'  With  Him  were  all  things  created  " 
(Col.  I  :  16),  the  meaning  of  which  is  explained  by  rJm  (see 
com.  i:  II,  12).  That  is,  the  whole  plan  of  the  universe  was 
built  upon  Him.  To  redeem  men  He  was  *'  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  that  is  /card  npddeacv;  and  when  it 
was  determined  that  we  should  be  '^called,''  it  had  to  be  "in 
conformity  with  the  image  of  (that)  Son,'*  He  Himself 
existing  at  that  time  only  as  an  ^^  image  ;  "  but  an  ''image''  so 
strangely  grand,  that  that  "  image "  must  be  formed  as 
necessary  to  any  other  ;  an  "  image  "  so  distinct,  that  it  had  a 
glory  with  the  Father  "before  the  world  was"  (Jo.  17  :  5,  see 
Augustine  ///  loc.)\  and  an  ''  i?nage''  so  prefigurative  of  the 
possibilities  of  redemption,  that,  unless  He  was,  we  could 
not  be,  so  that  He  was,  in  the  most  vital  sense,  "the  first 
born  among"  us,  and  ''the  first  born  of  the  whole  creation  " 
(Col.  I  :    15). 

Now,  this  gets  along,  as  Augustine  beautifully  pictures  it 
to  us,  without  remembering  that  He  was  the  Almighty.  But 
when  we  remember  that  He  was  God  incarnate,  the  "image" 
even  of  His  flesh  becomes  radiant  with  its  large  intentions. 
All  power  was  to  be  given  to  Him  (Matt.  28  :  18).  He  was 
to  be  head  over  all  things  for  us  (Eph.  i :  22).     He  was  to  sit  at 

♦Moses  said,  Who  shall  I  say  sent  me?  and  God  said,  "I  will  be 
WHAT  I  WILL  BE."  Say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  '*  I  will  be  hath  sent 
me  unto  you"  (Ex.  3:  14).  This  is  the  literal  Hebrew.  Jehovah  (Ex.  6: 
3)  is  but  the  third  person  singular  instead  of  the  first,  and  ought  long  ago  to 
have  been  recognized  as  "He  will  be  ;  "  Messiinic  in  the  very  name,  as 
predictive  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Most  High.  It  was  iht  "  image" 
of  this  Jehovah  as  one  day  constituted  God  and  man,  that  we  were  "  to  be 
conformed  to;"  not  as  "  only-begotten  "  (Jo.  3  :  16).  God  and  man,  but  in 
a  subordinate  sense  one  with  Him,  "that  He  migrht  be  a  first-born  amongr 
many  brethren." 


262  ROMANS. 

the  right  hand  of  God,  even  as  to  His  human  nature  the 
Chief  Executive  (Mark  14:  62);  and  we  are  ^^pla?ined"  in 
conformity  with  Him  so  vitally,  that  the  '•'■image'*  of  Christ 
had  to  be  formed  in  Heaven  before  we  could  be  dreamed  of 
as  ransomed,  and  before  the  possibilities  of  new-born  saints 
could  be  conceived  even  in  the  Almighty's  wisdom. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  this  is  not  a  separate  brochure 
upon  the  decrees,  but  a  natural  sequence  to  previous  ideas. 
Paul  has  put  us  very  close  to  our  Creator.  God  breathes  for 
us  our  prayers,  and  ^^  works  ivith  us  as  to  all  things  for  good'' 
With  such  intimacy  there  must  be  overshadowing  designs. 
Paul  says  we  are  ourselves  designs.  The  whole  universe 
once  stood  as  an  "/;//a^^."  We  were  i?fiages.  Every  one  of 
those  images  has  been  distinctly  realized.  But  among  those 
images  one  was  the  core  of  the  creation.  To  that  "  i?nage " 
all  others  had  to  be  conformed.  And  not  one  of  us  could  be 
thought  of  except  "  in  conformity  with  "  Him  without  whom 
life    from  death   would   be   a   simple  mockery. 

The  expression,  "  Whom  He  did  foreknow,"  is  not  a  dif- 
ficult one.  The  forekjiowledge  of  a  Creator  agrees  with  His 
predestination,  and  yet  the  predestination  of  a  Creator  is  not  in 
contempt  of  His  foreknowledge.  God  cannot  do  everything. 
Before  He  can  predestine  He  has  to  look  ahead  as  much  as  any 
creature.  In  other  words,  there  is  only  one  plan  possible  for 
the  Almighty.  Among  all  the  creative  myriads  there  is  but 
one  whole  that  is  the  wisest  and  the  best.  Our  Creator  has 
struck  for  that.  He  has  strangely  little  license,  this  God  of 
ours  ;  and  has  been  walled  in  unchangeably  since  the  depths 
of  the  everlasting.  He  has  every  license,  and  does  what  He  will 
in  the  eternal  ages.  But  what  He  wills  to  do  is  as  fixed  as 
fate,  for  there  is  but  one  wisest  thing  for  the  All  Wise,  and  He 
was  wise  from  everlasting.  "  Who?n  He  did  foreknow,'  there- 
fore, is  I  myself,  if  I  belong  to  Christ,  for  I  am  the  only  pos- 
sible man  to  stand  in  my  lot  and  do  my  service.  God  glanced 
down  the  age  and  saw  all  this  before  He  ^^ planned {mt)  out." 
Moreover  His  foreknowledge  is  distinguishable  from  His 
decree  in  another  eminent  light.     I  am  not  all  He  would  have 


CHAPTER   VIII.  25^ 

liked  me  to  be.     The  Deity  that  could  say,  -  Oh   that  thou 
hadst  known  "  (Lu.    19  :  42)  ;  or  the   Deity    that  could  say 
"  How  often   would   I   have  gathered  "  (Lu.  13  :  34)  ;  or  the 
unforced    artificer   who    could   nevertheless    declare     "What 
could  have  been  done  more  ?  "  (Is.  5:4);  the  God  who  could 
weep  over  Jerusalem,  or  of  whom  it  could   be  said,  He   ''  will 
have  all  men  to  be  saved  "  (i  Tim.  2:  4),  needs  Wis  foreknaivl- 
edge  m  its  glance  to  see  if  the  way  be  clear  for  mercy  ;    for 
while  -  it  is  the  glory  of  Gods  to  cover  over  a  thing,  it  is  the 
honor  of  Kings  to  search  out  a  matter  "  (Prov.  25  :  2).     The 
"  image  "-making   had   to  be  carried  so  far  that  Christ  himself 
was   an   ^Umager     The   whole  .rla^  had  to   be    an   ^Umage'' 
that  could  agree  together  ;  and,  though  Christ  was  the  Head 
He    himself    had    to  be    looked    at    in  foreknoivledre^   before 
He  could  be  shaped  into  a   decree,  which   is  the  idea  seized 
upon  by  Peter-"  who  verily  ^v^^  foreknown  (.rpoe>..a;..Vav)  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  "  (i  Pet.  i  :  20),  a  fact  that  must 
occur  in  God  before  the  -Image'  could  be   framed    -in   con^ 
formity  with  "   which   saved  souls  could  be  predestined  also. 
30.    But  whom  He  planned   out  beforehand,  them  He 
also   called    and  whom  He   called,  them  He  also   made 
righteous,  but  whom  He  made  righteous,  them  He  also 
made  glorious. 

"Called"  is  no  longer  the  participle   (v.  28),  but  the  main 
body  of  the  verb.     We  have  looked  in  vain  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  any  other  sense   than  effectually  -  calledr     "Made 
righteous  "  would  then  mean  sanctified.     Paul  says  •  "  But  ye 
are  washed,  but  ye  are  justified,  but  ye  are  sanctified  "  (E.  V., 
I  Cor.  6  :   n).     There  it  is  exceedingly  awkward  to  imagine 
anything  else  but  that  all  the  terms  mean  sanctification    Paul 
a  tasteful  rhetorician,  if  that  were   not  the  case,  would  have 
thrust  a  forensic  term  between  two  that  are  subjective      But 
alas  for  the  skill  of  the  apostle  !    in  the  present  text   it  would 
be  worse.     If  make  righteous  means  to    hand   over   to    us  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  then  Paul  would  speak  of  calling  first 
and  that  afterward.     How  is  that  for  a  theology  ?     If  the  sen- 
tence read,  "  Whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He  also  justified- 


264  ROMANS. 

and  whom  He  justified,  them  He  also  called  ;  and  whom  He 
called,  them  He  also  sanctified  (for  surely  there  should  be  some 
place  for  that)  ;  and  whom  He  sanctified,  them  He  also  glori- 
fied," the  argument  might  be  the  other  way.  But  with  no 
place  for  sanctification  at  all,  unless  making  righteous  means 
making  holy  ;  and  with  calling  put  first ;  and  with  justification 
put  after  calling,  it  is  as  if  a  sentence  read  this  way  :  ''  Whom 
He  called,  them  He  also  redeemed."  It  is  these  "  Horae  Pauli- 
nae  "  intimations  that  form  obiter  most  powerful  arguments. 
''Foreknew,''  first;  ''planned,'"  second;  "called,"  third; 
"  made  righteous,"  fourth  (a  process  not  like  calling,  sudden, 
but  lasting  to  the  end  of  life)  ;  and  then  "  made  glorious  "  in 
an  eternal  heaven  ;  that  boxes  the  compass  of  our  experience  ; 
but  would  leave  a  terrible  chas  n  if  "  made  righteous  "  did  not 
answer  to  our  subjective  change. 

31.  What  shall  we  then  say  to  these  things  ?  If  God  be 
for  us,  who  is  against  us  ? 

We  have  remarked  upon  this  already  (vs.  9-1 1).  He  who 
lives  in  us  (Gal.  2  :  20)  ;  He  who  is  so  morally  ours  that  He 
moves  within  us  what  we  propose  and  feel  (Phil.  2  :  13)  ;  He 
who  prays  when  we  pray  (vs.  26,  27),  and  actually  "  works  with 
those  who  love  Him  as  to  all  things  for  good"  (v.  28)  ;  and,  now, 
to  take  up  the  last  texts,  who  schemed  our  "  image  "  when  He 
schemed  the  "  image  of  His  Son,"  and  schemed  ours  "in  con- 
formity with  "  His  (v.  29),  hardly  need  add  a  feature  to  the 
words  of  the  apostle.  We  are  God's  men,  "  known  "  and 
"planned"  and  "  called"  and  "  sanctified "  and  "glorified"  No 
higher  unity  of  interest  can  easily  be  conceived.  And  Paul 
may  well  exclaim,  "  What  shall  we  then  say  to  these 
things?"  and  add  as  the  sum  of  our  escape,  "If 'God  be 
for  us,  who  is  against  us  ?  " 

^' C^;^  ^^"  (E.  V.)  undoubtedly  mars  the  sense.  It  is  like 
"  bountifully  "  (E.  V.)  put  into  one  of  the  Psalms.  David  cries, 
"  Return  unto  thy  rest,  O  my  soul,  for  Jehovah  has  been  deal- 
ing for  thee  !  "  (Ps.  116  :  7).  What  does  "  bountifully  "  add  to 
a  sense  like  that  ?  Paul  asks,  "  Who  is  against  us  ?  "  and  it  is 
amazing  how  deep  the  question  !     T\\&  " called"  has  no  ene- 


CHAPTER   VIII.  25^ 

mies  except  his  own  wicked  heart  :  and  the  apostle  goes  on  to 
say  that.  Not  d/>,t'".  not  iwanti^.  Satan  himself  is  a  friend  to 
the  believer  ;  for  Paul  has  explained  it,  "  God  works  together  as 
to  all  things  for  good  7vith  them  that  love  Him  "  (v.  28). 

32.  Here  is  something  stronger  too,  as  expressed  by  the 
word  ye  (indeed).  Not  only  have  we  the  assertions  of  the 
Almighty,  but  what  might  we  augur  ourselves  ?— 

3  2.  He  indeed  who  spared  not  His  own  Son,  but  delivered 
Him  over  for  us  all,  how  shall  He  not  with  Him  freely  cive 
us  all  things  P 

Before,  we  had  the  make-up  of  the  ''image,"  and  the  infer- 
ence ran  that  as  the  ''image  "  of  Christ  was  of  one  /oreAyiown 
and  predetermined  as  a  great  Deliverer,  so  His  people  must  be 
'' planned  out"  (v.  29)  "in  conformity  with  "  that  great  design. 
But  here  he  plunges  farther  down.  What  could  God  be 
thinking  of  in  ransom,  unless  His  will  was  to  give  us  the  largest 
grace  ?  "He  who  spared  not  His  own  Son,  but  delivered 
Him  over  for  us  all,  how  shall  He  not  with  Him  freely  eive 
us  all  things?"  y  &    ^ 

33.  And  mark  you,  says  Paul,  He  can  carry  out  His  designs. 
It  may  be  different  for  other  worlds,  but  here  He  is  "  in  the 
way  of  judgment  "  (Is.  26  :  8).  For  once  He  can  be  "  righteous, 
and  yet  jnake  righteous  "  (3  :  26).  He  can  lift  the  curse  of  sin- 
fulness. What  devil  (/.  e.  accuser)  can  be  "against  us" 
(v.  31)  ? 

33.  Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect  ? 
God,  who  makes  righteous?  34.  Who  is  he  who  con- 
demns ?  Christ  Jesus  who  died  ?  but  rather  who  was  raised 
from  among  the  dead  ;  who  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God  • 
who  also  makes  intercession  for  us  ?  ' 

The  interrogatory  form  of  the  thirty-fifth  vt-rsc  leads  us  to 
choose  the  same  for  all  these  other  verses.     Why  not  ? 

And  now  the  advantage  of  the  simple  Greek  of  the  thirty- 
first  verse  more  specifically  appears.  "  Who  can  be  against  us  ?  " 
(E.  V.)  would  be  very  expressive,  but  "  7C'ho  is  against  us  "  is 
much  more  so.  Paul  has  brought  the  Christian  into  the  most 
intimate  relations  with  the  Almighty.      He  lodges  in  him  (v.  9). 


266  ROMANS. 

Paul  has  uttered  that  strange  speech  that  when  we  pray,  God 
prays.  He  "  makes  intercesssion  {within)  us  "  (v.  26).  He  has 
enlarged  that  idea.  And  on  the  memory  that  if  He  prays  in  us 
He  doubtless  does  everything  else  that  is  excellent,  he  makes 
out  of  it  a  general  proposition  that  "  He  works  with  (us)  as  to 
all  things  for  good''  (v.  28).  And  then  the  transition  is  easy, 
that  we  are ''//^/2;/(f^  out''  eternally  in  conformity  with  an 
original  plan  made  for  our  Redeemer  (v.  29).  It  is  on  the 
back  of  this  that  he  asks,  "  Who  is  against  us  ?  "  Our  present 
sentences  take  that  interrogatory  to  pieces.  "  Who,"  for  ex- 
ample, "  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  »* 
Why,  only  God  could  do  it,  and  He  is  the  very  person 
who  is  busy  in  these  intimate  relations.  He  '■^planned  (us) 
out  "  (v.  29),  and  He  is  busy  making  us  righteous  "  in  confor- 
mity  with  "  our  Surety.  "Who  is  he  who  condemns?  "  Why, 
it  only  could  be  that  Surety  Himself.  Could  it  be  "  Christ 
who  died,"  while  He  is  positively  busy  for  our  salvation  !  Paul 
goes  over  the  points  of  His  redemption.  He  '^  died j"  nay 
"  rather  was  raised  from  among  the  dead."  Had  He  *'  died  " 
in  that  awful  shape  in  which  temptation  threatened  (Heb.  5  : 
7),  what  a  final  catastrophe  !  "  but "  He  was  enabled  to  resist 
temptation,  and  by  the  might  of  His  Godhead  was  "  raised 
from  among  the  (spiritually)  dead"  (6  :  4).  Under  stern  ago- 
nies He  fought  and  conquered,  and  Paul  goes  on  with  his  list, 
"  He  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God ;  "  and  in  this  place  of  Chief 
Executive  **  who  is  against  us"  if  He  is  ^^for  us  ?  "  He  is  not 
only  God's  "  hand"  betokening  the  instrument  of  His  general 
power,  but  He  is  God's  "  right  hand"  for  His  noblest  adminis- 
tration. The  Psalmist  calls  him  so.*  And,  therefore,  the 
transition  is  easy  that  He  who  in  so  many  things  is  interceding 
for  us,  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  the  one  to  condemti 
us. 

"  Also."  The  Spirit  intercedes  (v.  27)  and  Christ  intercedes, 
and  in  different  fashions.     The  Spirit,  that  is  the  Most  High 

*  '  That  thy  beloved  ones  may  be  delivered  save  thy  Right  Hand  and 
answer  me"(Ps.  60:  5).  The  introduction  of  ''  with"  {E.W.)  in  italics- 
ruins  everything. 


CHAPTER   VJII.  267 

(lod,  intercedes  unutterably,  that  is  by  warming  our  conscience, 
and  raising  our  desire  when  we  pray.  And  Christ  intercedes 
doubly  ;  first,  by  being  that  Most  High  (iod  who  is  the  Spirit, 
and,  second,  by  His  sacrificial  work,  which  only  could  have 
been  performed  by  our  weak  humanity. 

It  is  in  these  sentences  that  the  fact  appears  that  the  use  of 
this  whole  passage  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  ''perseverance'''  is 
utterly  unwarrantable.  'I'he  persons  spoken  of  are  "  Gars 
electa  The  doctrine  of  '*  election  "  itself  has  been  used  as  a 
proof  of  ''perseverance."  This  is  a  strange  fact  in  the  history 
of  the  church.  And  yet  what  a  miscalculation  of  the  very 
meaning  of  "perseverance !"  The  doctrine  of  " persrcerance" 
is,  that  a  converted  man  will  persevere.  What  has  that  to  do 
with  election  ?  Our  Saviour  says  that  "  he  that  endureth  to  the 
end  the  same  shall  be  saved  "  (Matt.  10  :  22).  Now  election 
provides  for  this,  for  God  foreknows  and  plans  beforehand 
all  necessary  conditions.  But  conversion  !  Who  shall  tell  by 
any  such  passage  as  this  where  that  is  to  end  ?  The  real 
meaning  of  the  apostle  closes  with  the  thirty-first  verse  : — "If 
God  be  for  us."  But  God  may  cease  to  "be  for  us"  if  we 
quench  Him  or  grieve  Him  away  (i  Thess.  5:19;  Eph.  4  :  30). 
The  persons  spoken  of  are  "  Goils  elect"  (v.  -1^-^.  They  are 
sinners  whom  He  sees  all  the  way  out  into  His  Kingdom. 
And  He  is  not  speaking  of  sin,  and  its  power  again  to  destroy 
the  sinner,  but  He  is  speaking  of  grace,  and  how  invulnerable 
while  it  is  kept  in  the  heart.  "  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me  he  is 
cast  forth  as  a  branch  "  (Jo.  15  :  6).  He  is  not  speaking  of 
sin,  but  of  all  other  things  that  could  be  thought  of  against  us. 

35.  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ— 
that  is   from  Christ's  love  to  us,  as  appears  from  the  thirty- 
seventh  verse?     Our  love  to  Christ,  however,  is  so  interwoven 
in  it  that  we  need  not  be  very  particular. 

35.— Shall  tribulation,  or  anguish,  or  persecution,  or 
famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword? 

This  is  a  corollary  of  the  twenty-eighth  verse,  which  says 
that  "  He  works  together  as  to  all  things  for  good  with  them 


268  ROMANS. 

that  love  God."     We  must  cease  to  love  Him,  or  else  these 
are  our  blessings.     Why,  they  are  sent  for  His  very  "  sake  !  " 

36.  As  it  has  been  written: 

For  Thy  sake  are  we  given  over  to  death  all  the  day ; 
We  are  reckoned  as  sheep  for  slaughter. 

The  ''image''  (v.  29)  in  which  we  originally  stood,  offered 
itself  to  God  shaded  with  all  this  "anguish." 

37.  On  the  contrary,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more 
than  conquerors  through  Him  who  loved  us. 

''  Shall  tribulation  separate  us  ?  "  "  On  the  contrary  (aXU), 
etc.,  etc."  "In  all  these  things."  How  well  that  echoes 
the  sentence  (v.  28)  "  as  to  all  things  for  good  r'  "We  are 
more  than  conquerors."  To  survive  pain  would  be  blessed. 
To  get  some  advantage  out  of  pain  would  be  a  success.  To  get 
all  advantage  and  no  mischief  would  be  a  victory.  But  to  get 
just  what  we  require,  and  to  find  in  it  God  Himself  working 
with  us  in  our  miseries  for  our  supremest  good,  that  is  what 
Paul  means  when  he  speaks  of  our  being  ''  more  than  co?iquerors 
through  Him  who  loved  us." 

38.  For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor 
angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  things  present,  nor  things 
to  come,  nor  powers,  39.  Nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any 
other  creation,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love 
of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 

"Death."  That  is  the  horror  of  the  thirty-eighth  verse. 
"  Angels  "  and  "  principalities  "  could  awaken  no  dissent. 
But  Paul  never  hesitates  about  that  word  ''deaths  It  is  with 
him  the  ideal  of  spiritual  ruin.  Now  if  God  be  in  us,  "  height" 
and  "  depth  "  and  "  things  present "  and  "  things  to  come  " 
and  "  powers  "  can  work  in  us  no  spiritual  terror,  but  "  death  " 
in  the  terrible  meaning  of  the  apostle,  how  can  that  not  separ- 
ate between  us  and  the  Almighty  ?  It  can.  But  mark  the 
language  of  the  text.  Can  it  "  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."  Let  us  take  the 
idea  to  pieces.  Can  future  "  death  1 "  No  ;  for  we  can  never 
fall  into  it  while  ''love''  continues.     Can  past  " death  V     No  ; 


CHAPTER  IX.  269 

for  it  is  out  of  that  that  ''love''  delivers  us.  Can  present 
^' death?"  No  ;  not  while  we  ''love"  God.  Paul  has  fenced 
his  texts  with  great  conditions.  God's  working  ''as  to  all 
things  for  good"  is  only  "with  them  that  love  "  Him.  And  this 
paean  over  "life"  and  "death"  is  only  possible  if  love  con- 
tinues ;  that  is,  if  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  never  wilfully  deserts, 
is  not  quenched  (i  Thess.  5  :  19)  or  trampled  on  (Heb.  10: 
29)  by  our  own  apostasy. 

The  only  thing  that  can  ruin  us  is  ourselves  ;  and  Paul 
makes  his  list  supereminently  complete,  for,  after  exhausting 
all  the  possibilities  of  earth,  he  throws  in  any  other  possibility 
of  being, — "  Nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creation." 
That  is,  God  can  make  nothing  that  will  destroy  His  love, 
unless  we  have  "  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith 
we  were  sanctified  an  unholy  thing,  and  have  done  despite 
unto  the  Spirit  of  grace  "  (Heb.  10  :  29). 

CHAPTER    IX. 

1.  I  speak  truth  in  Christ;  I  lie  not;  my  consciousness 
bearing  me  witness  in  a  Holy  Spirit,  2.  That  I  have 
great  grief  and  continual  sorrow  in  my  heart. 

Israel,  by  the  effect  of  all  this  reasoning,  is  thrown  entirely  out 
of  i.s  most  steadfast  confidences,  and  given  over,  like  any  other 
false  race,  to  perish.  Paul  has  distinctly  enounced  "  Circum- 
cision availeth  nothing"  (Gal.  5:6);  and,  building  upon  con- 
ditions open  to  everyone,  he  has  realized  for  the  Jew  that, 
instead  of  being  saved  by  Abraham,  Abraham  himself  was 
saved  like  any  heathen  (4  :  10).  Paul  chooses  his  speech, 
therefore,  under  the  impulse  of  the  profoundest  pity,  and 
yet  with  the  knowledge  that  the  Jew  thought  him  a  traitor, 
and,  after  his  scourgings  (2  Cor.  11  :  25)  and  stonings  (Acts 
14  :  19),  would  count  him  entirely  incapable  of  love  to  his 
race.  **  I  speak  truth  in  Christ."  What  he  says  in  the  third 
verse  is  so  extreme  that  the  declaration,  "I  lie  not,"  which 
might  seem  unworthy  of  so  great  an  apostle,  appears  the  least 
that  he  could  say.     Jews  were  hungering  for  his  blood.     The 


270  ROMANS. 

man  who  had  entered  into  their  supremest  service,  sat  with 
Gamaliel,  steeped  himself  in  the  religious  passions  of  his  peo- 
ple, gloried  in  the  law,  and  persecuted  believers  to  the  very 
death,  was  now  claiming,  in  the  awful  rebound  of  his  martyr- 
doms, to  have  a  love  and  to  exercise  a  desire  which  almost 
takes  our  breath  by  its  half  profane  intenseness  : — 

3^  For  I  could  wish  that  myself  were  accursed  from 
Christ  for  my  brethren,  my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh; 

There  is  no  art  of  Greek  criticism  that  can  turn  this  aside 
from  what  it  most  naturally  would  be  made  to  mean.  When, 
therefore,  Paul  cries  out,  ''  I  speak  truth  in  Christ,''  strengthen- 
ing his  word  as  a  man  by  that  higher  holiness  which  he  has 
been  explaining  as  coming  from  the  Redeemer,  and  when  he 
speaks  of  his  "  consciousness  bearing  witness "  with  him 
"  in  a  Holy  Spirit,"  it  is  not  at  all  unimaginable  that  Paul  had 
felt  the  necessity  both  in  himself  and  among  the  Israelites  of 
going  down  to  the  very  inwardness  of  his  thought  before  he 
trusted  himself  to  such  a  sentence.  There  is  a  supreme 
shrewdness  too.  He  is  about  to  deal  them  more  stunning 
blows.  What  could  conciliate  them  more  than  this  stern  sen- 
tence, if  they  could  only  believe  it  ? 

Now  what  did  it  really  mean  ?  Certainly  not  that  he  actu- 
ally wished  to  be  accursed  from  Christ.  And  this  touches 
the  core  of  the  difficulty.  We  have  in  another  part  of  the 
Bible  perhaps  a  stronger  expression.  Paul's  speech  is  "  I  could 
wish,"  and  King  James  is  right  in  giving  that  sense  to  the  im- 
perfect. But  an  earlier  saint  manifests  no  such  reservation. 
With  a  mother's  fondness  Moses  throws  himself  upon  his 
knees  and  cries  out,  ''  This  people  have  sinned  a  great  sin." 
It  is  the  same  thing  over  again  of  a  great  saint  warmed  by 
Christ  Himself  into  a  miraculous  affection.  The  Law-giver 
does  not  say,  "  /  could  wish,''  but  he  comes  out  boldly  with  the 
cry,  "  If  now  thou  wilt  forgive  their  sin — but  if  not,  blot  me,  I 
pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book  "  (Ex.  32  :  32).  The  solution,  there- 
fore, is  easy.  It  cannot  be  a  mad  speech,  or  two  great  ora- 
cles would  not  have  made  it.  It  cannot  be  an  unmeasured 
speech  ;  for,  though  it  is  poured  out  generously  by  one,  it   is 


CHAPTER  IX.  271 

limited  in  the  way  we  see  by  the  words  of  the  other.  When 
such  a  man  as  Moses  prays,  he  reserves  the  possibility  of  the 
thing  by  force  of  his  submission  to  his  Master.  Ikit  Paul  dis- 
tinctly questioned  the  possibility.  "/  could  ivishy  As  most 
commentators  insist,  he  meant  something  by  the  choice  of  a 
tense.  What  could  he  mean  ?  He  meant  gloriously  this  : — 
that  the  pain  and  torment  he  could  bear,  and  the  damna- 
tion of  hope,  and  eternal  loss.  That  same,  Moses  had  meant. 
Like  the  shadow  of  a  ship  upon  the  sea,  he  meant  this  shadow 
of  his  dying  Master.  Rather  than  my  whole  race  should  die, 
let  me  die.  And  he  meant  literally  and  theologically  thus  : 
Let  me  be  eternally  cursed  as  far  as  I  innocently  dare,  rather 
than  eternal  infamy  for  all  my  people. 

'■'My  consciousness  "  (v.  i).  The  word  in  the  (ireek  grew  to 
mean  ''conscience''  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  but  had  not  entirely  ripened 
that  way  in  the  days  of  the  apostle.  "  Spirit  "  (Trfi/ia)  meant 
more  squarely  our  moral  sense  (Jo.  4  :  23,  24  ;  Eph.  4  :  23.) 
When  Paul  cried  ''I  have  lived  in  all  good  conscience"  (E. 
V.  &  Re.,  Acts  23  :  i),  he  would  have  cut  his  tongue  out 
rather  than  mean  it  in  our  modern  way.  Peter  calls  ''bap- 
tism "  (that  is,  his  figure  there  for  conversion)  not  an  entire 
washing,  but  an  incipient  one,  or,  as  he  graphically  expresses  it, 
*' the  inquiry  of  a  good  consciousness  after  God  "  (i  Pet.  3:  21). 
In  fact  this  text  of  Paul  (v.  i)  sheds  light  upon  the  whole  use  of 
the  language.  *'  My  consciousness  bearing  me  witness  ;  "  that  is, 
my  inward  knowledge  of  my  own  heart,  and  that  in  its  condi- 
tion  as  enlightened  "by  a  Holy  Spirits  And  that  explains 
Peter's  sense  that  "  baptism  "  (used  here,  as  circumcision  is, 
Rom.  2  :  29,  for  a  whole  spiritual  change)  is  not  total  cleans- 
ing, or  "  the  washing  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,"  but  only  an 
incipient  one,  or,  as  we  have  just  been  saying,  "  the  inquiry  of 
a  good  consciousness  ;  "  that  is,  differently  stated,  a  sincere 
inquiry  of  the  converted  man  "  after  God." 

Some  passages  come  very  near  our  meaning  of  "conscience  " 
(13  :  5;  I  Tim.  4:2);  but  in  almost  all  there  lingers  the  idea 
of  mere  sincerity  (2  Cor.  1:12;  see  com.  2  :   15  ;  9  :   i). 

"  For   I  could  wish.''     This  is  a  proper  force  of  the  imper- 


272  ROMANS. 

feet ;  and,  as  it  has  been  intimated,  since  there  is,  therefore, 
an  actual  expression  of  reserve,  what  more  easy  than  to  allow 
that  to  be  the  possibility  of  its  being  innocent  ?  "  According  to 
the  flesh ; "  in  contrast  with  a  higher  kinsmanship,  which 
Christ  greatly  celebrates  (Matt.  12  :  48,  49),  and  which  Paul 
would  have  distinguished  as  kinsmanship  according  to  the  Spirit. 
Even  if  this  sentence  could  be  plausibly  diverted,  it  would 
come  bustling  back.  Its  simple  meaning  would  have  the  su- 
perior claim.  ^^  Anathema"  is  too  strong  a  word  not  to  mean 
damnation.  And  the  reserve  of  the  imperfect  is  sufficient  to 
shield  Paul  from  having  wished  to  be  an  eternal  sinner. 

4.  Who  are  Israelites  ;  whose  is  the  adoption,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and 
the  worship,  and  the  promises ;  5.  Whose  are  the  fathers, 
and  of  whom  is  Christ  as  to  the  flesh.  He  being  over  all  God 
blessed  for  ever.    Amen. 

It  is  the  habit  of  the  inspired  writers  to  have  no  expletives 
in  any  sentence.  When  Matthew  says,  ''  The  book  of  the  gen- 
eration of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham," 
he  has  a  use  for  each  expression.  And  in  this  list  of  Paul 
there  is  not  a  syllable  that  he  does  not  intend  as  explaining  his 
broken-heartedness  in  respect  to  his  people.  "Who  are 
Israelites."  The  very  name  of  their  ancestor,  *'  A  prince  of 
God  "  {Israel,  Gen.  32  :  28),  made  Paul  sad.  "  Whoso i3  the 
adoption."  There  is  a  lower  and  hi^hor  '^adoption."  There 
is  a  lower  and  higher  covenant  (Heb.  8  :  8).  More  striking 
still,  there  is  a  lower  and  higher  calling  (see  8:28,  30).  It  is 
the  habit  of  Holy  Writ  to  strike  a  thought  at  a  lower  and 
higher  plane.  Just  below  we  understand  that  "  they  ara  not 
all  Israel  that  are  of  Israel"  (v.  6).  We  have  already  seen 
that  with  certain  worshipers  *'  their  circumcision  has  become  un- 
circumcision"  (2  :  25).  And  within  the  limits  of  two  chapters 
here,  "  adoption"  which  is  first  saving  (8  :  14,  17),  sinks  to  the 
level  of  the  present  verse.  "  Israel  is  my  son  "  (Gen.  4  :  22) 
the  Almighty  says  to  Pharaoh.  To  Paul's  people,  therefore, 
belonged  *'///(?  ^^^///^;z,"  and  Paul  yearned  after  them  in  all 
these  traditional  and  vivid  lights.     And  yet  at  the  very  mo- 


CHAPTER  IX.  273 

ment,  Paul  is  building  that  most  elaborate  speech  by  which 
they  are  to  be  shown  as  utterly  apostate.  "And  the  glory." 
Though  we  write  Ichabod,  like  the  wife  of  Phinehas.  "And 
the  covenants  ;  "  and  these  are  all  the  solemn  pledges  of  God 
to  Israel.  "And  the  giving  of  the  law."  Than  which 
naught  could  be  more  special.  "  And  the  worship."  It  was 
all  at  Jerusalem.  "And  the  promises;  whose  are  the 
fathers."  This  would  touch  a  Jew,  for  Abraham  was  the  very 
God  of  their  mythology.  "  And  of  whom  is  Christ,"  though 
he  adds  "  as  to  the  flesh,"  for  Tamar  and  Bathsheba  and  that 
bad  Manasseh  were  the  ancestors  of  Christ  ;  and  yet  he 
brightens  his  enthusiasm  by  the  gleam  that  this  ill  descended 
Redeemer  was  nevertheless  a  great  tie  to  Israel,  because, 
though  coming  of  their  blood.  He  was  nevertheless  "over  all, 
God  blessed  for  ever." 

This  last  expression,  like  the  words  ''  /  could  wish  7tiyself 
accursed  from  Christ "  (v.  3),  has  been  labored  at  with  all  sorts 
of  adverse  suggestion.  But  it  always  returns  with  a  heavier 
demand,  to  its  more  rightful  interpretation.  It  may  be  the 
strongest  text  of  its  teaching.  But  there  must  be  some  strong- 
est text.  We  cannot  be  sure  that  the  sentence  may  not  break 
off  at  irnvTuv  (all),  and  the  rest  be  a  doxology,  '*  God  be  blessed 
forever''  (Ewald,  Fritzsche,  Erasmus).  But  who  can  ever 
settle  it  ?  How  can  we  be  sure  that  this  is  not  a  subterfuge  ? 
And,  as  the  vast  majority  of  the  church  believe  that  Christ  is 
really  God,  how  can  we  ever  forfeit  our  linguistic  claims,  or  be 
dreamed  of  as  turning  away  from  the  more  simple  exposition  ? 
Such  are  the  deep  utterings  of  Paul,  explaining  his  passion 
for  the  Jew  people. 

6.  But  not  so  at  all  because  the  word  of  God  has  fallen 
to  the  ground ;  for  they  are  not  all  Israel  who  are  of 
Israel.  7.  Neither  because  they  are  Abraham's  seed  are 
they  all  children ;  but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called. 

"Not  so."  There  is  more  in  this  than  has  usually  been 
translated.  The  word  is  q\ov,  so  much,  or  so  i:^reat.  This  neuter 
form  is  nowhere  else  in  the  Testament.  Paul  has  uttered  an 
astounding  declaration.     He  now  adds  to  it.     He  savs,  I  did 


274  ROMANS. 

not  speak  of  being  accursed  from  Christ  because  my  people 
have  been  wronged.  Adopted  and  raised  and  singled  out  as 
they  have  been,  it  is  not  that  they  have  been  cruelly  defrauded 
that  awakes  my  interest ;  or,  expressing  it  all  in  his  Greek, 
I  make  not  such  a  speech  {oiov)  as  this  "because  the  word  of 
God  has  fallen  to  the  ground."  For  he  goes  on  to  show 
that,  in  the  original  planning  out,  nothing  was  meant  to  occur 
but  what  had  occurred.  The  illustrative  and  spectacular  lan- 
guage that  had  been  used  they  had  abused  into  an  error. 
"  Circumcision  "  had  been  spoken  of  as  purity,  and  Abraham 
had  been  spoken  of  as  though  he  could  breed  pious  people. 
"They  are  not  all  Israel  who  are  of  Israel."  They  had 
had  evidence  that  this  "  Prince  of  God  "  was  a  wrong  depend- 
ence. So  of  Abraham's  "promises."  God  had  indeed  said, 
"  I  will  establish  my  covenant  (with)  thy  seed  after  thee  for 
an  everlasting  covenant"  (Gen.  17  :  7),  but  alas  !  what  a  crazy 
promise  if  anything  like  a  carnal  ^^seed"  were  dreamed  of  or 
intended.  Abraham  was  to  stand  as  the  father  of  the  faithful, 
not  from  begetting  all  that  believed,  and  not  from  begetting 
no  one  else,  but  as  Jabal  was  father  of  Nomads  from  leading 
the  way  in  that  race  of  herd-people.  That  reserves  were 
meant  was  found  in  the  very  family  of  Abraham;  for  "neither 
because  they  are  Abraham's  seed  are  they  all  children; 
but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called." 

8.  That  is,  the  children  of  the  flesh,  those  same  are  not 
children  of  God;  but  the  children  of  the  promise  are 
reckoned  as  a  seed.  9.  For  this  is  the  word  of  promise, 
According  to  this  time  will  I  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have 
a  son. 

It  was  obvious  from  all  that  transpired  that  God  intended 
great  favor  for  the  Israelitish  people.  But  it  would  have 
been  absurd  in  a  hierarchy  planned  for  righteousness,  to  give 
race-promises  by  birth,  so  that  circumcision  and  a  proper 
genealogy  from  their  chief  should  make  safe  passage  into  an 
eternal  Kingdom. 

The  rule  of  exceptions,  or,  rather,  the  fact  of  a  spiritual 
intention  in  the  promises  is  apparent  further  : — 


CHAPTER  IX.  275 

10.  But  not  only  so,  but  Rebecca  also,  having  had  com- 
merce with  but  one,  even  with  our  father  Isaac,  11.  (For 
there  being  none  born  as  yet,  or  any  to  do  good  or  evil 
that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  an  election  might 
rest,  it  was  not  of  works  but  of  Him  who  calls),  12.  It 
was  said  to  her  that  the  older  should  serve  the  younger; 
13.  Just  as  it  has  been  written,  Jacob  I  loved,  but  Esau 
I  hated. 

"Not  only  so,  but  Rebecca."  Here  was  a  different  case. 
Before  there  were  two  wives,  and  Ishmael  was  the  son  of  a 
bond-woman.  But  here  there  was  a  legitimate  wife,  and  the 
children  were  from  "one."  And  not  only  so,  but  they  were 
twin  children,  and  Esau  was  the  first-born.  So  intricate  a 
passage  could  hardly  be  made  more  simple.  In  Paul's  time, 
two  tests  were  appointed  by  the  Rabbis  for  a  man's  redemp- 
tion : — first,  Is  he  a  Jew  ?  and,  second,  Is  he  circumcised  ? 
(see  Schottgen  &  Eisenmenger).  Paul  has  been  disposing  of 
the  one,  and  is  finishing  it  in  these  very  verses  ;  but  in  the 
very  bosom  of  his  speech  he  puts  a  parenthesis,  which,  in 
the  most  curt  and  yet  most  thorough  fashion,  replies  to  the 
other.  He  has  been  showing  that  God's  promise  to  ^' Abraham^" 
and  then  to  "  Sarah,'"  and  then  to  '■'■Isaac,"  and  then  to  ^^  Jacob" 
was  not  squarely  what  they  had  conceived  ;  for  the  very  Scrip- 
tures of  the  times  revealed  a  reservation.  They  were  not  to 
Abraham,  but  only  to  Isaac.  They  were  not  to  Isaac,  but 
only  to  Jacob ;  so  that  in  the  patriarchal  history,  ''  T/ic 
children  of  the  ficsh,  those  same  are  not  children  of  God."  But 
Paul,  dealing  gently,  and  advancing  gradually,  comes  toward 
the  close,  of  the  chapter,  to  still  stronger  quotations.  Let 
it  be  observed,  he  takes  all  from  their  own  Scriptures.  Not 
only  was  Ishmael  turned  against,  though  the  seed  of 
Abraham  ;  and  Esau  cursed,  though  born  of  Isaac,  but  an 
entire  surrender  is  made  of  any  difference,  "/  -iCnll  call  the?n  ?ny 
people  wJiiih  were  not  my  people"  (v.  25,  fr.  Hosea  2  :  23);  and 
"  thoui:;h  Israel  be  as  the  sand"  only  '*  a  remnant  shall  be  saved" 
(v.  27,  fr.  Is.  10:  22,  23).  From  the  very  law  they  worshiped  in 
their  churches,  Paul,  therefore,  takes  the  proof  that  their  super- 
stitious trust  to  their  being  Jews  could  not  even  have  been 


276  ROMANS. 

relied  upon  by  the  ancient  patriarchs.  Packed-in,  then,  in  this 
soHd  argument  comes  the  parenthesis  which  has  been  hardly 
noticed.  It  is  complete  in  itself.  His  main  point  was  to  show 
that  some  men,  not  Jews,  had  been  prophesied  of  as  saved, 
and  some  men  who  were  Jews  had  undoubtedly  perished. 
Here  comes  in  the  other  point.  They  must  not  only  be  Jews, 
but  they  must  also  be  circumcised.  And  yet  Paul  says.  That 
cannot  be  a  proper  reasoning  in  the  case,  for  God  declared 
that  certain  things  should  be,  irrespective  of  any  fact  of  cir^ 
cumcision.  "  For  there  being  none  born  as  yet,  nor  any 
to  do  good  or  evil  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to 
an  election  should  have  whereon  to  rest,  it  was  not  of 
works  but  of  Him  who  calls." 

"None  born."  The  word  ''children'  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  is  not 
in  the  Greek.  **  To  do  good."  This  is  the  aorist  participle. 
"Rest."  Literally  "  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to 
an  election  might  rest."  But  for  the  sake  of  the  English 
we  vary  it  a  little  ;  "should  have  whereon  to  rest."  "It 
was  not."  This  seems  to  be  the  inspired  apodosis.  And  yet 
it  has  been  never  noticed.  It  demonstrates  itself  to  be,  both 
by  its  sense  and  grammar.  *'//  was  not  of  works."  This 
whole  arrangement  was  designed,  and  was  irrespective  of  any 
question  whether  the  man  would  get  himself  circumcised  or 
no.  It  was  the  great  scheme  "of  Him  who  calls,"  and  not 
of  the  existing  Esau.  And,  if  it  will  be  noticed,  the  paren- 
thesis is  the  only  part  that  deals  with  any  ritualistic  idea. 
Throw  its  contents  away  and  all  the  rest  is  but  a  train  of 
genealogic  evidences. 

"It  was  said  to  her."  This  looks  back  for  its  connection 
to  the  tenth  verse,  "  Jacob  have  I  loved."  This  word  is 
often  used  in  Hebrew  for  the  effects  of  love.  Solomon  uses  it 
that  way.  "  He  that  getteth  wisdom  loveth  his  own  soul " 
(Prov.  19  :  8).  It  is  the  same  with  hatred.  God  did  not  love 
Jacob  in  any  usual  way  before  he  was  born  ;  neither  did  He 
hate  Esau.  All  our  usual  speech  is  modified  by  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  believer.  When  we  are  called  "  holy  "  we  have  seen 
the  strain  upon  the  language  (com.  2  :  6).     When  Jacob  was 


CHAPTER  IX.  277 

born  he  was  a  sinner.  When  he  was  born  again  he  was  a  des- 
perately mean  man.  When  any  of  us  are  converted,  if  God 
hates  sin,  it  must  be  in  a  modified  method  that  He  can  be 
thought  of  as  loving  anybody.  Nor  is  this  essentially  difficult. 
Love  of  benevolence  and  love  of  complacency  are  the  only 
moral  loves  ;  and,  therefore,  there  is  vast  imprudency  of  speech 
in  characterizing  ''electing  love"  as  though  it  belonged  to 
either  of  these  simple  feelings.  It  is  a  pregnancy,  meant  to 
express  a  volume  :  and  corresponds  graphically  with  other 
sayings  of  the  East.  Wisdom  cries,  "  All  they  that  hate  me, 
love  death  "  (Prov.  8  :  36).  She  says,  "  I  love  them  that  love 
me"  (v.  17);  though  how  can  wisdom  love  when  it  is  a  mere 
abstraction  ?  And  so  of  the  corresponding  phrase, — "  He  that 
spareth  his  rod  hateth  his  son"  (Prov.  13:  24);  or,  more 
striking  still,  "  Whoso  is  partner  with  a  thief  hateth  his  own 
soul"  (Prov.  29:  24).  "  Electing  A;?'6',"  therefore,  is  nothing 
but  a  pregnant  word,  including  pure  benevolence,  including 
anticipated  esteem  as  far  as  the  objects  of  it  shall  be  worthy 
of  any,  but  including,  above  all,  that  effect,  as  though  of  ''  love,'* 
which  results  from  the  discovered  possibility  (see  v.  22)  of  a 
soul's  redemption. 

14.  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Is  there  unrighteousness 
with  God?  By  no  means;  15.  For  He  says  to  Moses,  I 
will  have  mercy  on  whomsoever  I  can  have  mercy,  and 
I  will  have  compassion  on  whomsoever  I  can  have  com- 
passion. 

The  true  philosophy  of  God  includes  the  doctrine  of  His 
entire  sovereignty.  The  sovereignty  of  God,  which  even  infi- 
dels are  inclining  to  under  the  modern  naturalisms,  has  been 
frightfully  marred  by  two  additions,  which  men,  otherwise 
good,  have  rashly  made  to  it.  One  is,  that  God  is  sovereign 
over  the  actions  of  my  mind,  which  He  undoubtedly  must  be 
to  be  any  God  whatever,  and  s/mprs  the  choices  of  His  soz'- 
ereignty  for  the  display  of  His  perfections ;  a  gospel  that  is 
simply  horrible.  Hell  must  measure  its  depth  of  mischief. 
Atheists  have  attacked  it  with  zeal,  and  then  pretended  that 
they  were  attacking  Christianity.     It  has  not  a  lineament  of 


2  78  ROMANS. 

what  is  Christian.  We  are  indeed  taught  that  God  does  every- 
thing for  display  (Ps.  8  :  i  ;  29  :  9},  but  always  as  a  gracious 
instrument.  We  are  taught  that  this  display  is  vital  for  our 
good  (Ps.  d-T^  :  2).  We  are  taught,  therefore,  that  it  is  an  inter- 
mediate end  (Eph.  3  :  10  ;  Rom.  9  :  17).  But  that  God 
damns  a  creature  for  display,  and  that  such  is  His  final,  and 
therefore  only,  and,  in  itself,  all-sufficient  and  absolutely  posi- 
tive and  necessary  end,  must  sink  any  conceivable  system. 
And,  sadly  enough,  the  same  men  who  teach  this  wickedness, 
teach  another,  namely,  that  this  self-adulating  conduct  of  the 
universe  is  sovereign  in  the  sense  of  naked,  stark  and  absolute 
pleasure  of  the  governing  will. 

When  we  take  the  word  ''  good  pleasure,"  and  put  the  word 
''  mere "  to  it  (West.  Sh.  Cat.,  Qu.  20),  forgetting  evdoKia, 
which  it  is  meant  to  translate,  and  forgetting  "good,"  which 
might  be  a  reminder  of  the  truth,  we  form  habits  of  theology 
which  God's  character  will  not  bear.  ^^TAe  righteousness  of 
God''  is  the  very  thing  revealed  in  the  Gospel  (Rom.  i  :  17). 
In  the  very  heart  of  our  religion,  viz.,  Christ  ;  and  in  the  very 
object  of  Christ,  viz.,  the  salvation  of  the  sinner  ;  and  in  the 
very  secret  of  salvation,  viz.,  the  will  of  the  Almighty,  to  plant 
a  motive  like  display,  and  then  to  forget  even  that,  in  a  stark 
supremacy  and  such  do-as-you-please  vital  sovereignty  of 
work,  is  really  to  throw  away  the  beauty  that  converts,  and  to 
put  in  its  place  a  horror  which  repels  the  perishing. 

Now  the  resting  place  of  this  mistake  has  been  this  ninth 
chapter  of  our  English.  Here  are  three  verses.  They  stand 
apart,  and  undoubtedly  they  teach,  if  left  to  King  James,  this 
naked  sovereignty  of  Heaven.  Once  more  scholars  have  looked 
in  upon  them  and  left  them  the  same  (Re.).  They  must  be 
very  clear  Greek,  so  any  one  would  think.  Moreover  they 
are  very  different  Greek  ;  so  that  if  one  were  differently  read, 
the  others  would  still  stand  separate.  Let  me  mention  them 
together: — "I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  (will)  have 
mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  (will)  have 
compassion  "  (v.  15).     ''So  then  it  is  not  of  hi?n  that  willeth, 


CHAPTER  IX.  279 

nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  shaiufth  mercy  "  (v.  16). 
"  Therefore  hath  He  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and 
whom  He  ivill  He  hardeneth  "  (v.  18). 

Famous  texts  !  We  open  a  Calvinistic  creed,  and  there  they 
are  as  a  matter  of  course.  Under  the  head  of  Predestination 
no  sentences  have  been  used  so  much.  In  long  ages  of  agita- 
tion we  have  looked  to  them  for  the  harsh  and  the  bitter. 
What  a  sadness  if  it  has  been  all  a  mistake  !  And  yet  close 
criticism  will  find  that  such  has  been  the  fact.  The  first  sen- 
tence is  from  the  Old  Testament  (Ex.  ^:^  :  19).  Moses,  after 
infinite  condescensions,  cries  out,  **  I  beseech  thee  show  me 
thy  glory."  God  answers  him.  He  translates  what  He  will 
do  into  these  two  promi.ses,  •'  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  to 
pass  before  thee,"  and,  as  though  it  were  the  same  thing,  "I 
will  proclaim  (my)  name,  etc."—;  and  then,  with  the  rw  of 
material  fulfilment,  he  utters  our  text.  I  appeal  to  any  fair 
mind  whether  it  is  morally  possible  that  God  meant  that  all 
His  ''goodness''  was  exhibited  to  Moses,  and  all  His  great 
''na?ne"  proclaimed,  by  telling  him  He  would  do  as  He 
pleased  !  What  is  conspicuous  is  the  solitariness  of  the  aver- 
ment. There  is  nothing  more.  Man  has  grandly  prayed,  and 
God  has  gloriously  answered.  And  now,  t^at  all  the  consum- 
mation is  in  this  wilful  speech,— I  will  do  as  I  please  !  is  of 
all  hermeneutical  dreams  the  most  flatly  scandalous.  '' Par- 
turiunt  monies,  nascetur  ridiculus  mus."  And  thou.trli  we  do 
not  pretend  to  shape  Scripture,  yet  reason  can  cry  a  deter- 
mined halt,  and  say.  The  text,  ''  This  is  my  body,"  or  the  text, 
"Wash  away  thy  sins,"  or  the  text,  "I  give  unto  thee  the 
keys,"  or  if  there  be  any  other  conundrum  in  the  Book,  it  shall 
be  looked  hard  into  for  its  sense,  before  we  rest  for  a  moment 
upon  an  absurd  or  wicked  interpretation. 

Doing  this  service  for  Exodus  we  find  that  the  established 
significance  has  been  an  almost  wilful  presumption. 

Let  it  be  understood  that  there  is  no  subjunctive  in  Hebrew. 
The  sense  of  contingency  is  supplied  by  the  future.  *'  Can  the 
rush  grow  up  without  mire  ?  "  (Job  8  :  11)  ;  that  is  simply  the 
future.     Our  translators  say  '•  can,"  there  ;  why  not,  therefore, 


2  8o  ROMANS. 

in  the  infinitely  weightier  passage  ?  EHsha  says  to  the  woman, 
"  Sojourn  wheresoever  thou  canst  sojourn  "  (E.  V.,  2  Kings 
8  :  i).  This  is  precisely  parallel.  Why  do  the  translators  un- 
derstand  the  subjunctive,  and  yet  fatally  forget  it  where  it 
would  have  expounded  and  glorified  the  Almighty  ? 

In  a  context  where  He  was  about  to  say,  "  Only  my  back 
parts  can  be  seen,"  meaning  the  results  of  my  administrations, 
why  did  not  the  translators  seize  so  important  an  assurance  to 
our  faith  (especially  as  they  seized  the  far  less  important  in- 
stances), and  when  God  had  said  "  I  will  make  all  my  good- 
ness pass  before  thee,"  see  how  splendidly  He  was  fulfilling 
that  speech  when  He  said  ''  I  will  be  gracious  to  whomsoever  I 
CAN  be  gracious,  and  will  show  mercy  on  whom  /can  show 
mercy  ?  " 

Taking  refuge  in  the  Greek,  and  saying,  It  is  the  Greek  that 
is  inspired  (quoted  as  it  is,  and  adopted  now  by  the  apostle), 
and  insisting  that  the  Greek  (of  dv  with  the  subjunctive)  must 
mean  the  future,  will  not  answer  at  all.  'Kv  really  belongs  to  of, 
not  to  the  subjunctive  (Meyer,  Alford,  see  Jelf,  Gram.  §  829  : 
i).  The  subjunctive  always  expresses  contingency.  We  confess 
that  in  most  instances  the  contingency  is  not  potential.  But 
that  is  as  it  happens.  The  contingency  is  explained  by  the 
subject  matter.  When  the  Septuagint  says,  ''  Will  a  flag  grow 
without  mire  ?  "  (Job  8  :  11),  or  when  the  New  Testament  says, 
TTug <j)vyrfTe  (Matt.  23  :  ;^^),  our  translators  do  not  hesitate  a  mo- 
ment :—"  Can  a  flag  grow  without  mire  ?  "  (E.  V.)  or,  "  How 
can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell  ?  "  (E.  V.). 

The  reader  must  always  judge  the  sense.  "  Bake  that 
which  ye  will  bake,  and  seethe  that  ye  will  seethe  "{bm  kav,  LXX., 
Ex.  16  :  23).  Here  we  would  never  say  "can,"  for  they  could 
stuff  all  into  the  fire  at  a  stroke.  But  the  contingency  in  an 
instant  emerges  as  one  of  convenience.  Then  when  David 
says,  "  Seeing  I  go  whither  I  may  "  (E.  V.,  2  Sam.  15  :  20), 
and  when  Elisha  says,  ''  Sojourn  wherever  thou  canst  sojourn  " 
(E.  v.,  2  Ki.  8  :  i),  the  turn  of  the  sense,  though  the  future 
is  the  same,  infallibly  marks  out  the  subjunctive  differences. 

For  how  else  can  we  arrive  at  any  meaning  on  the   part  of 


CHAPTER  IX.  281 

the  apostle  ?  Dr.  Hodge,  upon  the  harshest  ground  of  arbi- 
trariness, says  that  Paul  is  simply  stating  what  God  claims  ; 
because  we  cannot  go  back  of  that.  He  does  as  He  pleases, 
and  simply  is  saying  so.  But  in  that  we  forget  that  Paul  has 
volunteered  an  explanation.  To  say  that  he  is  shifting  the  re- 
sponsibility to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  is  absurd,  for  it 
is  an  Old  Testament  Scripture  that  is  in  question  (v.  13).  It 
would  be  defending  one  speech  of  God  by  obtruding  a  worse. 
That  is  what  tempts  the  infidel.  Therefore  Alford  holds 
that  what  Paul  is  meaning,  is,  that  what  influences  God,  is 
actual  mercy.  ■'■  When  I  show  mercy  I  show  mercy."  But 
that  is  hardly  sufficient  ;  for  the  difficulty  does  not  lie  in  the 
region  of  mercy,  but  in  the  region  of  wrath.  Give  Paul  the 
sense  of  those  indifferent  passages  about  "the  flag"  and  "'the 
rush,"  and  the  text  becomes  of  the  first  class.  The  chapter 
sweetens  in  a  moment.  Sovereignty  remains  just  as  total  ;  and 
I  believe  it  to  be  absolute.  But  it  is  not  a  do-as-you-please 
sovereignty.  Paul  brings  Moses  into  a  line  with  Christ.  Just 
as  the  prophet  said,  "  What  could  have  been  done  more  for 
my  vineyard  that  I  have  not  done  in  it  ?  "  or  as  Jeremiah,  "  He 
doth  not  afflict  willingly  ;  "  or  Christ,  "  How  often  would  I 
have  gathered  ;  "  or  Paul,  "  Who  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved  ;  "  or  Ezekiel,  "  Have  I  any  pleasure  at  all  in  the  death 
of  him  that  dieth  ?  "  so  there  can  be  no  ripple  of  doubt  that 
Paul's  great  answer  was  meant  to  be  that  God  had  said  to 
Moses  that  He  would  have  compassion  on  all  He  could,  and 
save  all  that  He  was  able. 

To  the  objection  that  this  denies  God's  omnipotence,  we  op- 
pose, first.  His  own  texts  above  given  ;  but  then  further,  we 
interpose  a  proper  account  of  God's  omnipotence.  He  could 
make  all  the  sea-corals  archangels,  or,  taken  by  themselves.  He 
could  make  the  chalk  cliffs  of  England  redolent  of  their  ancient 
life,  and  then  make  each  insect  which  made  them,  a  planet 
covered  with  inhabitants.  But  query.  Is  it  irreverent  to  say  that 
He  could  tut  do  this  in  the  broadest,  widest  and  most  intelli- 
gible sense  ?  God  has  a  mighty  whole  for  His  work  ;  and  it  is 
perfectly  consistent  to  imagine  that  He  cannot  remove  even  a 


282  ROMANS. 

grasshopper  from  our  planet,  athwart  or  aside  of  His  whole 
design. 

i6.  But  let  us  move  on  to  the  next  difficulty.  ^^  So  then  it 
is  not  of  him  that  willeth^  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of 
God  that  showeth  mercy  "  (E.  V.  &  Re).  This  is  the  trans- 
lation of  everybody.  And  yet  it  is  a  wonder.  The  first 
syllable  should  have  bred  a  pause.  What  a  departure  from  all 
the  thinking  of  the  Bible  to  say  that  mercy  "  is  not  of  him 
that  willeth  !  "  What,  in  all  strictness,  is  it  of,  according  to 
the  rules  of  the  gospel,  except  specifically  this  very  thing  ?  If 
a  man  wills,  he  is  saved.  As  a  man  wills,  be  it  to  him.  To 
bring  the  impenitent  to  will  is  the  whole  burden  of  gos- 
pel preaching.  A  man  will  not  will  without  the  Spirit  ;  but 
that  is  not  the  idea.  That  is  taught  in  another  sentence  where 
John  says,  "  Which  were  born  not  of  the  will  of  the  flesh  "  (Jo. 
X  :  13).  We  may  search  in  vain  for  a  sentence  which  makes 
light  of  the  human  will  as  not  the  sine  qua  non  of  the  soul's  re- 
demption. 

But  what  then  does  the  sentence  mean  ?  Lay  it  down 
smoothly  in  the  Greek,  and  look  at  it  !  Remember  Hebrais- 
tic habits  of  speech  that  love  to  place  substantives  last  (Prov, 
16  :  2  ;  21  :  2  ;  22  :  it  ;  27  :  9,  see  Com.).  And,  lest  some 
men  object  the  repeating  of  the  article,  remember  Jelf's  rule 
that  in  certain  strong  cases  the  article  must  be  repeated  (Jelf, 
Gram.  §  459,  9).  Therefore  it  will  be. seen  to  be  remarkable 
that  a  certain  sense  which  we  now  subjoin,  has  not  been  earlier 
the  reading  of  the  passage. 

16.  Then  therefore  it  is  not  of  the  willing,  nor  of  the  run- 
ning, but  of  the  mercy  showing  God. 

That  meaning  is  entirely  complete.  With  Paul's  quotation 
that  Heaven  does  all  it  can  ;  and  with  the  implication  that, 
in  announcing  this,  God  fulfilled  all  that  He  had  declared  and 
made  all  His  goodness  pass  before  His  servant,  comes  the  sim- 
ple corollary  that  then  "  it  is  not  of  the  willing  nor  of  the  '* 
eagerly  hastening  God  \}c\dX  damnation  comes,  but  of  one  whose 
great  aim  is  "mercy."  It  is  not  justice  that  is  crushed  by  a 
theology  like  this,  but  justice  that  is  ennobled.     Just  as  the 


CHAPTER  IX.  283 

sun  produces  tempests  as  well  as  summer  radiance,  so  (iod 
does  but  shine  when  He  curses,  and  shine  too  in  mercy  and 
compassion,  though,  as  the  fruit  of  His  mercy,  in  the  shape 
of  a  needful  rectitude,  some  men  are  the  victims  of  His  wrath, 
and  suffer  endlessly  where  He  cannot  save. 

17.  For,  notice  further;  the  word  yap  in  the  seventeenth 
verse  has  not  its  simplest  sense,  but  rather  an  explanatory  one 
(see  com.  4:3;  Matt,  i  :  18),  as  though  the  apostle  said,  It 
is  on  this  wise,  or  in  necessary  agreement  with  this,  that  the 
Almighty  says,  etc. 

17.  So  that  it  is  on  this  wise  that  the  Scripture  says  to 
Pharaoh,— For  this  very  purpose  did  I  raise  thee  up,  that 
I  might  exhibit  in  thee  My  power,  and  that  My  name 
might  be  fully  manifested  in  all  the  earth. 

God's  glory  is  His  final  end  (see  remarks  v.  15),  but  it  is 
glory  in  the  old  Hebrew  sense.  The  word  'r03  {glory)  means 
weight.  It  came  to  mean  excellence.  As  a  little  child  would 
say,  God's  final  ^t\-\(\  is  to  do  right,  which  agrees  with  His 
highest  glory  in  the  sense  of  excellency.  But  when  it  comes 
to  display,  that  appears  at  once  subordinate.  And  here  we 
see  expounded  the  subordinate  uses  of  display.  They  are 
immensely  great.  Paul  recurs  to  them  again  in  the  twenty- 
second  verse.  And  here  in  the  seventeenth  they  are  the 
methods  of  God's  mercy.  I  did  not  damn  Pharaoh  at  my 
will,  but  necessarily,  and  in  pursuit  of  an  eternal  plan.  And 
though  in  that  plan  only  God's  back  parts  could  be  revealed 
(Ex.  II  :  23),  yet  that  Great  Sovereign  condescends  to  tell 
His  servant  that  one  thing  he  must  accept ;  for  that  that  one 
thing  is  the  essence  of  His  ''goodness  ;  "  that  by  telling  it  to 
Moses  He  did  thereby  ''proclaim  (His)  name  ;  "  that  that  one 
thing  answered  to  his  prayer  that  He  would  show  him  His 
glory;  and  that  that  one  thing  was,  that  He  ''would  have 
mercy  on  all  on  whon  He  could  have  mercy;  "  and  that  that 
bent  and  purpose  of  compassion  must  be  recollected  as  the 
proper  gloss  of  the  severest  expressions  of  the  sovereignty  of 
Heaven. 

18.  I  confess,  however,  that  I  feel  weak  when,  after  batter- 


284  ROMANS. 

ing  down  two  walls,  which  every  commentator  has  helped  in 
building,  I  come  to  another,  and  the  inexpugnableness  of  this 
triple  defence  appears  in  the  fact  that  they  are  all  built  of  dif- 
ferent material.  How  unlikely  it  seems  to  be  that  there  should 
be  three  texts,  all  looking  one  way,  all  built  of  different  Greek, 
each  studied  separately  and  pronounced  upon  alike  by  every 
interpreter  of  Scripture  ;  and  that  a  student  who  avows  that 
he  hates  their  doctrine,  should  be  right  in  teaching  that  all  the 
expositors  are  wrong  ;  that  all  the  passages  fall  into  his  view  ; 
that  the  three  texts  are  of  the  mildest,  instead  of  the  bitterest, 
in  the  word  of  God  ;  and  that  what  intervenes  to  shew  this, 
is  different  in  every  text,  so  that  when  one  wall  is  broken 
down,  it  requires  a  different  sap  and  mine  in  the  least  degree 
to  affect  the  other  !  Who  would  believe  this  ?  And  yet  we 
could  believe  almost  anything  rather  than  the  text,  '■'■  There- 
fore hath  He  fnercy  o?i  whom  He  will  have  7nercy,  and  who?n  He 
will  He  hardeneth  "  (E.  V.,  see  also  Re.).  We  are  not  con- 
scious of  being  warped  by  reason.  Something  in  the  Greek 
has  arrested  us  in  every  instance.  But  if  we  tried  hard  to 
escape  King  James,  we  could  not  feel  very  guilty,  when  Paul  is 
deliberately  asking,  ^'■Is  there  unrighteousness  with  God?  "  and 
puts  us  off  with  the  reply  (E.  V.)  that  He  does  as  He  pleases  ; 
that  He  hardens  whom  He  will  ;  and  that  the  result  is  simply 
of  His  pleasure  ;  that  "  //  is  not  of  hi?n  that  willeth,'"  but,  in  the 
most  starkly  naked  sense,  of  God  where  He  chooses  to  damn. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  God's  perfect  sovereignty 
we  earnestly  declare.  The  very  dust  that  floats  by  this  pen 
was  decreed  eternally.  The  lightest  act,  like  the  laugh  of  the 
fair  girl  who  by  her  speech  at  Nahor  was  to  become  the  ances- 
tress of  the  Redeemer  (Gen.  24  :  14,  18,  19),  is  walled  in  like 
adamant.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  that.  But  that  it  is  done 
for  display,  I  mean  chiefly  ;  or  done  at  will,  I  mean  simply  at 
will,  is  abhorrent  to  all  our  feeling  ;  and  that  is  a  high  act  of 
piety  that  mellows  this  chapter  of  Paul,  and  lifts  it  out  of  that 
chamber  of  despair  where  it  has  so  long  brutalized  the  wor- 
shipers of  Jesus. 

But  now  let  us  approach  the  sentence.     The  chief  priests  and 


CHAPTER  IX.  285 

scholars  in  Jerusalem,  when  they  passed  by,  mocked  Christ, — 
"  Let  Him  deliver  Him  now,  if  He  will  have  Him  "  (E.  V., 
Matt.  27  :  43).  The  sentence  is  e'ldklei  avrdv.  It  is  not  classic 
Greek,  but  it  is  precisely  similar  to  the  words  of  our  passage. 
The  Septuagint  says,  *'  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  didst  not 
will  "  (oiK  f/6ih/aac,  Ps.  40  :  6).  And  Paul,  still  more  leaning  to 
Hebraistic  use,  throws  away  classic  principle  altogether  ;  for 
he  actually  talks  of  willing  in  humility  (Col.  2  :  18),  as  though 
the  words  were  3  |*Dn.  and  as  though  there  were  no  fealty  that 
he  owed  to  the  strict  original.  Now  consider  this  license  of 
Paul,  and  our  sentence  is  expounded  at  once.  We  are  to  take 
note  of  a//tv  (not  expressed),  and  of  the  6k, — ''on  the  one  hand'* 
and  "^//  the  other  hand,''  and,  in  ways  more  certain  than  in 
the  other  instances,  this  Scriptural  thought  emerges  : — God 
wishes  the  salvation  of  all,  I  mean  in  a  certain  and  well  under- 
stood sense  of  revelation  (Lu.  19:  42  ;  Lu.  13:  34),  but  He 
ordains  only  the  salvation  of  some.  For  reasons  that  are  good 
and  noble — "  One  man  whom  He  has  a  desire  after  He 
shows  mercy  to,  and  another  man  whom  He  has  a  desire 
after  He  hardens."  As  though  he  would  say,  "  God  would 
have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth"  (i  Tim.  2:4):  but  while  "it  is  the  glory  of  Gods  to 
cover  over  a  thing,"  it  is  "  the  glory  of  Kings  to  search  a  thing 
out"  (Prov.  25  :  2).  God  cannot  explain  His  administration  ; 
on  the  contrary,  "  the  heaven  for  height  and  the  earth  for 
depth,  and  the  heart  of  Kings  is  unsearchable  "  (ib.  v.  3);  but 
He  condescends  to  assure  the  Lawgiver  that  He  hath  mercy 
on  whom  He  can,  and  Paul  translates  that  as  meaning — 

18.  Then,  therefore,  one  man  whom  He  has  a  desire 
after  He  shows  mercy  to,  and  another  man  whom  He  has 
a  desire  after,  He  hardens. 

19-21.  Translators  still  continue  to  do  injustice  to  the 
apostle.  Mewii'}?  ("  Az///^/- ")  in  the  twentieth  verse, 'H  ("^r") 
in  the  twenty-first  verse, 'Ei  (5f  ("Z^/// //")  in  the  twenty-second 
verse,  and  above  all  rh  &wa7ov  {^'what  is  possible"  for  Him),  and 
KaTT/priauiva  (*'  7i'ho  hii7'e  bccn  fitting  theinsclves  "),  are  all  trampled 
out.     They  are  the  very  life  of  the  passage.     Paul  does  not 


286  ROMANS. 

mean  to  adopt  the  doctrine  that  "the  potter  has  right  over 
the  clay.'*  It  would  be  an  infamous  idea.  But  his  meaning 
is,  Say  that,  "  rather "  than  say  the  other  thing.  Mcvowye, 
which  occurs  but  four  times  in  the  Bible,  is  the  very  cream  of 
the  sentence.  The  objector,  after  such  careful  apologies  for 
God  as  God  had  resorted  to,  comes  after  Him  again,  and  Paul, 
rebuking  this  avrairoKpivd/zevov,  this  desperate  answerer  back,  uses 
this  word  /uevovvye.  ''''Rather "  than  answer  that  way,  answer 
this  way.  That  "  f/ie  potter  has  right  over  the  day,''  Paul  does 
not  dream,  to  wit,  in  the  sense  of  creating  a  victim  to  suffer. 
Nothing  could  be  more  atrocious.  If  God  has  any  moralities 
at  all,  they  would  cry  out  against  such  an  exercise  of  power. 
The  quiet  expression  "but  if"  in  the  twenty-second  verse, 
shows  that  Paul  is  returning  there  to  his  actual  argumenta- 
tion. But  here  he  is  merely  flirting  the  caviller  : — ''Rather  " 
than  say  one  mad  thing,  say  the  other,  which  might  be  distorted 
out  of  an  ancient  prophet  (Jer.  i8  :  6),  and  might  seem  to  have 
as  much  a  shadow-like  capacity  of  reason  : — 

19.  Thou  wilt  say,  therefore,  unto  me,  Why  does  He  yet 
find  fault  ?  for  who  has  resisted  His  will  ?  20.  Say  rather, 
O  man,  *  Who  art  thou  who  answerest  back  over  and  again 
to  the  Almighty  ?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  Him  who 
formed  it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus?  '  21.  Or,  *Has 
not  the  potter  right  over  the  clay  to  make  of  the  same 
lump  one  vessel  to  honor  and  another  to  dishonor  ?  * 

Mtwwvyf  does  not  mean  "  Nay  but "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  ;  avraTroKpivo. 
fiEvoc  does  not  mean  simply  who  replies  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  ;  tj  does 
not  mean  starkly  nothing,  so  that  we  have  a  right  to  omit  it 
altogether  (E.  V.),  and  «  61  does  not  mean  ''  what  //"  (E.  V. 
&  Re.)  ;  so  that  if  we  insist  that  these  particles,  which  are 
great  lights  in  this  connection,  shall  be  treated  as  though 
meant  by  the  apostle,  we  shall  almost  force  the  expositor  to 
come  into  our  better  meaning. 

22.  But  if  God,  wishing  to  explain  the  wrath,  and  to  make 
what  is  possible  for  Him  known,  endured  with  much  long 
suffering  vessels  of  wrath  who  had  been  fitting  themselves 
for  destruction  ; 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  four  things  in  this  sentence 


CHAPTER  IX.  287 

seem  to  fix  its  meaning ;  first,  the  "  But  if,''  seeming 
to  imply  that  the  apostle  is  returning  to  more  deliberate 
considerations;  second,  the  word  "explain,"  which  means 
itnuarJIy  to  explain,  or  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  a  thing.  The 
expression  is  not  '' His  wrath''  (E.  V.  <S:  Re.),  but  "the 
wrath;'*  and  ''wrath  "  in  so  merciful  a  Jehovah  requires  just 
such  an  explanation  to  be  given  by  His  dealings.  Third, 
**  what  is  possible."  It  was  a  shame  to  translate  this  "  His 
power  "  (E.  V.  ^:  Re.).  It  is  the  same  root  that  is  transla- 
ted, '*  What  the  law  eould  7iot  do  "  (8  :  3).  And,  fourth, 
"fitting  themselves."  Now  put  all  these  together.  The 
sense  of  the  middle  separates  the  lost  from  the  saved.  The 
lost  '' had  been  Jittini^  themselves"  (see  admissions  of  Dr. 
Hodge).  The  saved  "He  had  before  prepared  unto  glory  " 
(see  next  verse).  "  What  is  possible  for  Him  "  agrees  per- 
fectly with  the  fifteenth  verse, — "  /  will  have  mercy  on  whom- 
soever I  can  have  mercy."  And  the  specific  purpose  of  display 
does  not  exhibit  itself  as  the  final  end,  but  in  agreement  with 
the  seventeenth  verse,  as  the  merciful  means  by  which  *'  the 
righteousness  of  God  is  revealed  from  faith  to  faith  "  (i  :  17), 
and  by  which  God  does  what  He  can  to  "  explain  "  what  *'  is 
possible  for  Him"  to  the  creature. 

"  Vessels  :  "  to  keep  in  view  the  illustration  of  "  the  potter." 
«*  Who  had  been  fitting  themselves  :"  to  keep  at  a  proper  dis- 
tance the  illustration  of  "  the  potter."  No  one  can  exaggerate 
the  sovereignty  of  the  *'  King  ;  "  but  He  dooms  the  lost  and 
He  lifts  the  saint  by  an  entirely  different  responsibility.  He 
damns  the  one  from  the  very  beginning,  but  because  he  will 
''  fit  himself "  for  his  fate,  and  He  lifts  the  other  without  any 
such  prevision.  He  does  not  pretend  that  we  will  understand 
it.  But  He  does  tell  us  in  this  gentlest  chapter  of  His  word, 
that  He  will  save  all  He  can,  and  that  He  will  "  explain  "  as  far 
as  He  is  able  "  ivhat  is  possible  "  for  His  grace,  and  what  must 
be  true  of  "  the  wrath  "  that  blazes  forth  in  so  patient  an  ad- 
ministration. 

23.  And  that  He  might  make  known  the  riches  of  His 
glory  upon  vessels  of  mercy  whom  He  before  prepared 
unto  glory, 


288  ROMANS. 

Let  us  recur  to  the  points  made.  First,  the  King  is  un- 
searchable (Ex.  T^-i,  :  22).  Second,  He  announced  to  Moses 
that  He  would  save  all  He  could.  Third,  the  abandonment  of 
any,  as  signified  in  such  a  passage  as  "  Jacob  have  I  loved ^  and 
Esau  have  I  hated''  is  necessitated  firstly  and  most  of  all  by 
each  man's  wickedness,  but,  as  concerns  selections  among  the 
wicked  to  be  subjects  of  mercy,  is  a  deep  mystery.  Paul  says 
there  are  reasons  for  it,  for  he  gives  the  reasons  for  his  own 
deliverance  (i  Tim.  i  :  13,  16),  but  those  reasons  are  far  away 
out  of  our  sight.  But,  fourthly,  the  reasons  have  to  do  with 
the  uses  of  the  gospel — I  mean  this,  in  part.  The  object  of  the 
gospel  is  to  convert  the  sinner.  The  characterization  of  the 
gospel  is  that  "  it  is  the  power  of  God'^  (Rom.  i  16).  The  oper- 
ation of  this  ''^ poiver  "  is  in  its  revealing  "  the  righteousness  of 
God''  (ib.),  and  the  exhibition  of  this  righteousness  is  largely 
in  the  treatment  of  sinners.  That  He  may  ''^explain  (His) 
wrath"  He  punishes  the  lost  (Of  course  He  must  do  it 
justly)  ;  "  and  that  He  might  make  known  the  riches  of  His 
glory,"  He  saves  a  remnant.  Fifthly,  the  implication  is  that  His 
conduct  is  so  wise  that  it  is  ''  ivhat  is  possible  for  Him  "  as  a 
King  (v.  22).  And,  sixthly,  after  celebrating  this  as  '^  His 
glory,"  and  these  very  mysteries  of  His  grace  as  "  the  riches  of 
His  glory,"  and  holding  out  the  joy  that  we  were  pre-determined 
to  enjoy  this  "glory"  ourselves,  He  lights  down  upon  what  is 
a  habit  of  the  apostle,  viz..  Scripture  for  it  all.  This  Queen 
of  the  Epistles  might  be  called,  ''  Mysteries  of  Christ  Proved 
out  of  the  Writings  of  the  Older  Dispensation  ;  "  for  the  lost 
apodosis,  which  has  so  troubled  commentators,  is  really  the 
apostle  putting  his  pen  upon  this  very  point  : — 

24,  25.  He  says,   as  also  in  Hosea,  of  us  whom  He  has 
also  called,  not  of  the  Jews  only  but  also  of  the  Gentiles, 
I  will  call  them  My  people  who  were  not  My  people. 
And  her  beloved,  who  was  not  beloved  ; 
26.  And  it  shall  be  in  the  place  where  it  was  said  to  them. 
Ye  are  not  My  people. 
There  they  shall  be  called  sons  of  a  living  God. 

It  is  thus  that  we  solve  many  difficulties.  First,  the  apodosis. 
The  apodosis  that  we  find  is  perfectly  grammatical.     If  God, 


CHAPTER  IX.  289 

wishing  to  do  a  certain  thing,  bore,  &c.  c^'C,  and,  with  the  further 
design  to  accomplish  still  another  thing  ;  (He  avowed  it  long 
before,  for)  He  says  (as  also  with  special  application  in  Hosea), 
I  will  call  them  my  people,  il'C.,  (I'c.  Why  this  has  not  always 
been  the  apodosis,  we  cannot  imagine.  It  explains  the  interpo- 
lation of  Kai  ("  also  ")  ;  "  whom  He  has  also  called."  It  is  the 
echo  of  the  word  ^por^roiyiaatv  (''  whom  He  before  prepared,''  v.  23), 
"  whom  He  has  also  called:'    And  then  again  "  also  in  Hosea  " 

one  of  those  delicate  touches  in  the  apostle  to  save  him  a 

whole  narration.  For  now,  let  us  mention  a  second  difficulty. 
A  second  difficulty  was  that  Hosea  is  speaking  of  the  Israel- 
ites. Paul  does  not  stay  to  notice  that,  but  boldly  says  "  Not 
of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles."  He  plainly 
asserts  that  God  has  said  it  in  ten  thousand  other  ways  besides 
Hosea.  But  he  claims  "  also  "Hosea.  And  he  claims  him  on 
the  hardest  point,  not  only  that  Israel  might  be  cast  off,  but, 
what  was  more  startling  to  a  Jew,  that  Israel  was  never  fairly 
on  ;  that  they  were  "  not  all  Israel  that  were  of  Israel  "  (v.  6.)  ; 
that  they  might  easily  credit  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  when 
they  themselves  were  quoad  hoc  Gentiles.  And  then  the  par- 
ticle fit  pushes  that  extreme  by  another  quotation  : — 

27.  On  the  other  hand  Isaiah  cries  out  concerning 
Israel— 

As  though  the  apostle  had  said,  Although  the  quotation 
before  this  might  be  supposed  to  apply  to  all  men,  and  fairly 
to  teach  that  we  are  "not  beloved  "  till  "beloved  "  through 
the  blessed  Redeemer,  "on the  other  hand  "  Isaiah  says  what 
is  specifically  "  concerning  Israel."  It  is  mad  to  start  at  God's 
sovereignty  or  arrogate  the  election  of  Heaven,  when  the  Jews 
never  became  His  people  themselves  except  outwardly,  accord- 
ing to  Hosea,  and  "  on  the  other  hand,"  and  in  a  way  confined 
to  Israel,  Isaiah  had  cried  out  that  the  mass  would  never  be  a 
''people," — that  the  multitude  of  them  would  all  be  curst  ;  for,  as 
he  expresses  it  : — 

27.  Though  the  number  of  the  sons  of  Israel  be  as  the 
sand  of  the  sea,  it  is  the  remnant  that  shall  be  saved ;    28. 


29©  ROMANS. 

Por  it  is  a  word  which  He  finishes  and  outs  short  that  the 
Lord  executes  upon  the  earth. 

Mistake  is  at  best  vague  and  clashing.  The  people  could 
hardly  have  supposed  that  all  Israel  would  be  saved.  For  the 
prophets  were  full  of  denunciations.  Yet  they  did  teach  that 
no  circumcised  Hebrew  could  perish  (see  com.  9  :  10).  Infi- 
delity is  a  slimy  bog  that  obstructs  rather  than  confronts  the 
Gospel,  The  Sadducees  hardly  believed  that  there  was  no 
form  of  immortality  (Acts  23  :  8).  And  yet  our  Saviour, 
against  them,  and  Paul,  against  the  Rabbinical  extravagance 
about  the  Jew,  go  down  to  the  very  depth,  and  answer  once  for 
all,  and  out  of  their  own  acknowledged  authority  of  Scripture. 

He  goes  back  further  too  in  the  prophet  : — 

29.  And  as  Isaiah  had  said  before,— 

Unless  the  Lord  of  Hosts  had  left  us  a  seed, 
We  should  have  become  as  Sodom,  and  should  have 
been  made  like  unto  Gomorrha. 

"  Said  before."  Isaiah  spanned  sixty-two  years  (Is.  1:1). 
It  was  like  quoting  a  prophet  for  each  reign,  ''  Uzziah, 
Jotham,  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah."  Quoting  this 
special  language  was  referring  to  something  a  quarter  of  a 
century  older  than  what  went  just  before.  And  as  the  later 
Scripture  was  a  prophecy  (v.  27),  and  the  earlier  Scripture  was 
a  history  (v.  29),  the  7:pouprjKtv  {^^ said  before'')  was  graphic. 
Paul  would  overwhelm  them  with  the  argument  that  Israel 
always  was  and  always  would  be  cursed,  and  only  blessed  by 
the  same  law  as  the  accursed  heathen. 

30.  What  shall  we  say  then? 

Paul  is  going  to  end  with  what  Solomon  would  call  "the 
conclusion  of  the  whole  matter"  (Ec.  12  :  13).  Godward  he 
has  brought  out  the  fact  that  the  discrepancies  of  fate  are  de- 
termined upon  (i),  not  for  divine  display,  and  (2),  not  for 
''mere  good  pleasure,"  but  for  mJo/c/a.  or  God's  "  thinking  fit," 
under  necessary  rules  of  administration.  And  now,  manward, 
he  centres  all  upon  "faith"  (v.  30).  It  was  not  *' blood  " 
(Jo.  I  :   13)  ;  and  it  was  not  rite  (Gal.  5:6);  and  it  was  not 


CJIAPTKR  IX.  291 

^'7t'^r/'^-,"  done  by  the  letter  under  the  mere  instructions  ''of 
the  law  "  (Gal.  2  :  16),  but  it  was  just  the  one  solitary  thing  of 
obedience  to  the  rule  of  faith  in  the  Redeemer. 

These  are  his  sentences  : — **  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  " 

30.— That  Gentiles,  not  pressing  after  a  righteousness,  had 
put  their  hands  on  a  righteousness,  but  it  was  the  right- 
eousness of  faith  ;  31.  But  that  Israel,  pressing  after  a  law 
of  righteousness,  came  not  the  earlier  to  any  law;  32. 
Why?  Because,  not  out  of  faith  but  as  it  were  out  of 
works,  they  stumbled  at  the  stone  of  stumbling  ;  33.  As  it 
has  been  written, 

Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  an  en- 
trapping rock ; 

And  he  who  believes  on  It  shall  not  be  made  ashamed. 
30.  "  Not  pressing  after  a  righteousness."  Paul  does  not 
mean  that  the  nations  had  no  idea  of  virtue  ;  but  that  the 
Jews  had  no  other  idea  ;  that  their  very  chief  was  a  Law- 
giver. He  means  to  remind  them  that  their  rule  was  a 
theocracy  ;  that  their  very  raison  d'etre  was,  to  be  pure  and 
holy.  He  calls  to  remembrance  their  sacred  books,  which 
were  stuffed  full  of  moral  commandments.  He  remembers 
their  sacrifices,  which  were  meant  to  teach  them  "righteous- 
ness." He  only  means  to  say  that  the  heathen  led  com- 
mon lives,  with  only  common  chances  to  know  the  Almighty, 
but  that  the  Jews'  very  business  was  to  be  righteous.  He 
was  about  to  tell  them  (10:  2)  that  they  had  ''a  zeal  for 
God,''  and  actually  wanted  to  keep  the  law,  but  that  for  one 
sole  defect  they  were  cursed  (v.  32).  The  "Gentiles,  ;/,;/ 
pressing  after  a  righteousness,  KaTe7.a^Ev,  had  gripped  down  upon 
a  righteousness,  but  it  was  the  righteousness  of  faith.  But 
Israel,"  who  had  a  vast  system  of  ordinances  to  assist  this  very 
exercise  of  dependence,  had  nursed  the  ordinances  and  lost 
the  faith.  "Pressing  after  a  law  of  righteousness,"  they 
followed  it  even  in  the  minutest  details  {]v>.  5:10)  with  a 
''zear\v.  2)  totally  different  from  any  of  the  Gentiles.  And 
yet  Gentiles  were  saved,  and  they  not  !  Why  ?  Because  Gen- 
tiles, like  Abel,  accepted  Christ,  and  they,  like  Cain,  had 
another  offering. 


292  ROMANS. 

All  these  words  are  expressive.  30.  "Put  their  hands 
upon ;  "  that  actual  gripe  and  seizure  which  consists  in  ^^  faith'' 
'•*' K  righteousness ;'' iox.  it  was  not  the  perfect  righteousness, 
"but"  only  that  dawning  one  which  rises  in  the  sinner.  31. 
"  Pressing  after  a  law  of  righteousness.''  Notice  the  guard  put. 
Israel  really  did  not  press  ^'' after  righteousness  ;  "  and,  there- 
fore, they  did  not  even  attain  the  "law."  *  They  followed 
the  law  slavishly,  that  is,  the  shell  or  letter  of  the  law.  But  as 
"  the  righteousness  of  the  law  "  (8  :  4)  is  the  sole  kind  of  right- 
eousness, they  did  not  attain  that.  They  simply  kept  the  letter 
with  bad  hearts  and  dark  consciences,  or.  as  Paul  describes  it, 
'^  a  zeal  for  God,  but  not  according  to  knowledge"  (10:  2). 
"  Came  not  the  earlier."  ^ddva  means  more  than  ''  arrive  at " 
(Re.).  It  means  to  come  the  first.  *'  We  which  are  alive  and 
remain  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  shall  not  prevent  (or 
come  before,  (pdaaufiev)  them  that  are  asleep"  (i  Thess.  4  :  15). 
It  helps  us  to  mingle  better  the  Jew  and  the  barbarian.  Both 
shall  come  (some  of  them),  but  neither  earlier  or  with 
fixed  permission  above  the  other.  "  Why?  Because  not  out 
of  faith,  but,>s  it  were,  out  of  works."  <'  Works  "will  save 
any  body.  "  Repent  and  be  converted  that  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out  "  (Acts  3  :  19).  What  Paul  means  are  ^'  works  of 
the  law  "  (9  :  32).  That,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  is  the  more  full 
expression.  A  man  is  never  saved  by  works  which  the  law 
leads  him  to  by  merely  thundering  at  him.  He  is  never  saved 
by  mere  preaching,  that  is  to  say,  by  direction  \  or  eloquent 
appeal.  Salvation  must  be  '' by  faith  ;  "  which,  in  simpler  lan- 
guage, means  turning  to  God  in  recognition  of  His  grace,  and 
seeking,  through  Him,  a  change  of  nature. 

"Stumbling."  Isaiah  connects  the  idea  of  a  trap  (Is.  8  : 
14).      A  trap,  first  (i),  deceives  ;   second   (2),  attracts,  and, 

*  ''  Righteousness"  {E,\.)  is  not  repeated  under  the  best  authorities 
(see  Re.). 

f  Law  (Heb.)  is  from  the  verb  to  cast,  and  is  derived  from  the  idea  of 
throwing  up  the  hand  to  point  out  the  way,  that  is,  to  direct.  "  Works  of 
the  law  "  were  works  induced  by  mere  direction,  works  that  could  not  be 
saving,  because  they  required  additionally  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


CHAPTER  X.  293 

third  (3),  ruins.  Paul  adds  this  idea  to  the  thought  of  his 
Redeemer.  "To  the  Greeks  (He  was)  foolishness  "  (i  Cor.  i  : 
23).  They  looked  into  His  claims,  and  found  them  stupid. 
But  "to  the  Jews  (He  was)  a  stumbling-block"  (ib.).  The 
Jews,  of  all  other  men,  were  prepared  for  the  Redeemer. 
This  was  (2)  the  Messianic  bait.  They  were  hurrying  on  after 
Christ  by  the  instigation  of  all  their  prophecies.  This  gave 
them  the  bitter  fall  when  they  stumbled  against  Him.  For 
(i)  they  were  deceived.  They  needed  just  such  "  a  stone,"  but 
the  builders  rejected  it.  They  did  not  dream  that  this  was 
their  Messiah.  While  the  Greeks  were  cool,  the  Jews  were  in 
a  fury  against  their  Redeemer.  In  their  zeal  for  Christ  they 
stumbled  against  Him  ;  and  (3)  the  horrid  ruin  of  their  crime 
was  incident  to  those  three  facts  :  first,  their  aroused  excite- 
ment about  a  King  ;  second,  their  utter  ignorance  of  the  Man  ; 
and,  third,  the  crime  that  all  this  begat.  No  wonder  that 
Paul's  feelings  were  aroused  ;  first,  in  profound  pity  for  the 
Jew  ;  and,  second,  that  this  most  improbable  Prince,  the  "gin 
and  the  snare"  (Is.  8  :  14)  of  Israel,  might  be  found  out  in 
time  as  one  by  believing  in  whom  men  might  "not  be 
made  ashamed." 


CHAPTER   X. 

1.  Brethren,  my  heart's  approval  indeed,  and  prayer 
to  God  for  them,  is  in  the  direction  of  salvation. 

VVe  must  notice  carefully  this  word  fv6oKui.  It  is  not  '^desire'' 
(E.  V.  &  Re.).  Paul  says,  "  I  obtained  mercy  because  I  did  it 
ignorantly  "  (i  Tim.  i  :  13).  He  makes  a  still  stronger  state- 
ment, "  I  verily  thought  I  ought  to  do  many  things  against 
the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  "  (Acts  26  :  9).  The  slightest 
generosity  would  lead  him  to  think  of  that  in  respect  to  his 
people.  *'  My  heart's  approval,"  Paul  would  very  naturally 
say,  lies  "in  the  direction  of  (the  Jews')  salvation." 

Notice  the  ^kv  which,  as  translated  "indeed,"  comes  in  well 
even  in  English  idiom. 


2  94  ROMANS. 

2.  For  I  bear  them  witness  that  they  have  a  zeal  for 
God,  but  not  according  to  knowledge. 

What  frightful  sacrifices  these  Hebrews  made  (i  Mace.  2  : 
32,  etc.;  2  Mace.  15  :   i,  etc.)  ! 

3.  For  not  knowing  God's  righteousness,  and  seeking 
to  establish  their  own,  they  have  not  submitted  them- 
selves to  the  righteousness  of  God. 

Paul  did  not  mean  that  he  approved  of  their  salvation  if  God 
did  not  save  them,  but  that  his  hopes  lay  "  in  the  direction  "  of 
God's  doing  it.  They  had  been  so  miserably  deceived  !  But 
now,  he  pictures  just  the  common  lack  by  which  all  perish. 
They  had  not  "knowledge."    The  word  is  a  very  strong  one 

(eTTiyvcjCTff). 

And  this  word  kmyvuaig  means  that  inner  moral  knowledge 
(i  :  28  ;  Heb.  10  :  26)  so  often  characterized  as  of  the  ''truth" 
(Ps.  51:6;  61  :  7  ;  119  :  142),  so  often  called  ''light''  (2  Cor. 
4  :  6),  which  is  really  tantamount  to  "love''  (i  Jo.  3  :  2),  and 
which  is  the  all-including  exercise  of  a  renovated  conscience. 
What  they  needed  for  "zeal"  was  that  it  should  be  out  of  a 
converted  heart  (Acts  26  :  18).  And  to  this  agrees  the  further 
expression.  Paul  had  said  that  the  Gospel  was  "  the  power  of 
God"  (i  :  16).  And  he  had  explained  that  the  reason  it  was 
"the  power"  was  that  therein,  as  its  great  object,  "the  right- 
eousness of  God  (was)  revealed"  (i  :  17).  That  revelation  is 
nothing  more  than  this  same  causing  to  know  of  which  this 
passage  speaks.  Paul  had  been  showing  that  we  could  not  be 
caused  to  know  by  the  law  ;  in  other  words,  we  cannot  be 
taught  to  be  morally  enlightened.  Moreover  we  cannot  teach 
ourselves.  A  man  cannot  enlighten  his  own  conscience  and 
heart.  Therefore,  a  man  cannot  be  justified  by  the  works  of 
the  law,  that  is,  made  righteous  in  this  impossible  way,  by  the 
law  instilling  works,  or  creating  good  and  illuminated  actions. 

4.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
to  everyone  that  believes. 

A  fine  exposition  of  this  is  in  the  next  verse  : — 

5.  For  Moses  writes  that  the  man  who  has  done  the 
righteousness  which  is  from  the  law  shall  live  therein. 


CHAPTER  X.  295 

It  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  do  it  perfectly.  He  is 
not  speaking  of  the  hard  demands  that  were  made  of  the  first 
Adam.  When  Moses  said,  "  Behold,  I  have  set  before  thee 
this  day  life  and  good,  and  death  and  evil  "  (Deut.  30  :  15), 
he  does  not  mean  that  *'  life  "  lay  only  with  the  perfect.  He 
meant  just  what  Christ  meant, — that  if  they  would  listen  to 
these  moral  sayings  of  His  and  do  them  (Matt.  7  :  24),  they 
would  be  choosing  "  life."  This  is  meant  by  "  M^  righteous- 
ness from  the  law''  (see  also  2  :  26  ;  8:4),  which  is  just  as 
true  a  righteousness,  if  it  were  attained,  as  '*  the  righteousness 
of  Gody  But  Moses  knew,  and  Paul  knew  infinitely  better 
than  Moses,  that  commanding  people  to  be  righteous,  and 
causing  people  to  be  righteous  were  entirely  different  things. 
Moses  was  correct  in  promising  life  to  the  keepers  of  command- 
ments, and,  therefore,  "  the  righteousness  from  the  law  "  is  all 
they  wanted.  But  keeping  the  commandments  still  remained 
as  the  condition,  and  their  keeping  the  commandments  was  a 
thing  absurd.  Keeping  the  commandments  involved '* /^//^7i'- 
ledge,"  and  moral  ^''knowledge''  was  ihe  light  of  God,  and  this 
grand  requisite  is  the  want  of  the  sinner,  and  thoroughly 
explains  all  the  language  of  the  apostle.  "For  they,  not 
knowing  God's  righteousness"  (v.  3).  Of  course,  that  was 
their  very  difficulty.  They  could  not  open  their  own  con- 
science. God,  as  the  sole  Model,  was  revealed  to  them  in 
great  mercies,  and  they  could  not  see  Him.  "And  seeking 
to  establish  their  own  "  (v.  3),  that  is,  to  get  good  and  holy 
by  taking  up  the  outward  commandments.  "They  have  not 
submitted  themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God  "  (v.  3). 
That  is  (i),  they  have  departed  from  the  Model,  resting  satis- 
fied with  a  righteousness  of  forms,  and,  furthermore  (2), 
departed  from  the  commandment.  Thundered  out  from  Sinai 
was  the  command  to  believe.  The  law  recognized  no  other 
method  of  being  reformed.  "Christ  was  the  end  of  the 
law"— blazoned  in  a  thousand  sacrifices.  The  chief  occupa- 
tion on  Horeb  was  to  see  that  He  was  prefigured.  There  was 
no  way  of  obeying  without  Him  ;  and,  therefore,  as  the  only 
''end''   of   the   commandment,  He   was  the   only   means   of 


296  ROMANS, 

^^ knowledge^''  2SiA  thence  of  ^' faith,"  3.v\d  thence  of  ''works" 
for  anyone  who  desired  a  recovery  of  ''righteousness." 

To  put  it  all  plainly,  "  Christ  (was)  the  end  of  the  law  "  in 
two  particulars.  First,  that  a  return  to  the  law  was  described 
as  repentance,  and  there  was  no  repentance  for  the  devils, 
but  only  for  the  beneficiaries  of  Christ;  and,  second,  that  Christ 
Himself  was  a  part  of  the  law,  and  that  the  chief  weeks  on 
Sinai  were  spent  in  describing  Christ,  and  in  binding  upon  the 
people  that  which  He  Himself  afterward  called  the  chief 
occasion  of  sin  (Jo.  15  :  24),  and  the  chief  subject  of  the 
"  work  "  (Jo.  6  :  29),  and  will  (Jo.  7  :  17),  and  way  (Jo.  10  : 
6  ;  Acts  18  :  26)  of  the  Most  High  ;  that  is,  to  take  Him  up 
and  believe  on  Him  as  the  only  cleansing. 

The  righteousness  of  God  as  meaning  imputed  obedience,  and 
our  own  righteousness  as  meaning  one  which  tue  seek  to  establish 
as  satisfying  the  law,  are  the  doctrines  of  our  day  ;  yet  never- 
theless are  mere  Lutheranisms.  It  is  anomalous  that  things 
absent  from  fifteen  centuries,  should  become  so  fixed  in  the 
last  three.  These  are  in  no  respect  useful.  Christ  can  become 
all  our  hope  in  the  way  the  fathers  described  Him.  He  died 
for  us.  All  that  I  need  is  pardon.  Secure  to  me  a  continued 
pardon,  and  make  it  triumphant  and  complete  in  the  day  of 
judgment,  and  all  my  curses  must  be  removed,  and  my  chief 
curse  is  my  iniquity.  It  impairs  grace  to  dream  that  that  is 
not  sufficient.  In  fact  tell  plainly  where  it  is  not  sufficient  ! 
If  I  am  sinful,  and  therefore  guilty,  and  therefore  given 
over  to  sin  ;  and  then,  if  I  am  ransomed,  and,  therefore 
pardoned,  and  so  completely  pardoned  at  the  last  that  I 
am  entirely  sanctified,  where  do  I  need  the  righteousness  of 
another  ?  It  does  not  detract  from  Christ's  work,  it  adds  to 
it,  to  make  "  the  one  sacrifice  perfect  forever  them  that  are 
sanctified."  And  there  are  evidences  in  this  very  chapter 
that  forensic  "righteousness"  is  not  conceived  of.  "For 
Moses  writes  that  the  man  who  has  done  the  righteouness 
which  is  from  the  law  shall  live  therein."  This  would  not 
be  true  if  *'  righteousness  "  must  be  imputed.  But  take  it  as  we 
have  explained,  that  the  condition  of  salvation   is  "  righteous- 


CHAPTER  X.  297 

nfss  ;  "  that  that  "  righteousness  "  must  be  in  the  sinner  ;  that 
that  "  righteousness''  begins  not  perfect  ;  nevertheless,  even  in 
its  dawning  shape,  that  Moses  and  all  the  prophets  have 
declared  that  we  will  "  live  thereby  ;  "  that  this  "  righteousness  " 
is  nothing  more  than  the  washing  (i  Cor.  6  :  11),  and  the 
cleansing  (2  Cor.  7  :  i  ;  i  Jo.  i  :  9),  and  the  repentance  (Acts 
20  :  21),  and  the  conversion  (Acts  3  :  19),  and  the  turning 
from  sin  (Ez.  ;i;^  :  11)  of  all  the  preachers  of  the  Word,  and 
we  have  just  what  Paul  describes,  a  thing  not  reached  through 
being  commanded,  but  reached  through  being  instilled. 
*'  The  righteousness  from  the  law,*'  and  with  no  other  prompt- 
ing, would  save  a  man  if  he  possessed  it,  but  who  is  going  to 
possess  it  ?  The  command  of  it  merely  genders  to  bondage  ; 
6.  But  the  righteousness  which  is  from  faith  speaks  on 
this  wise,— Say  not  in  thy  heart,  who  shall  ascend  into 
heaven?  (that  is  to  bring  Christ  down);  7.  Or  who  shall 
descend  into  the  abyss  ?  (that  is  to  bring  Christ  up  from 
among  the  dead) ;  8.  But  what  says  it  ?  The  word  is  nigh 
thee  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart  (that  is  the  word  of 
faith  which  we  preach),  9.  That  if  thou  wilt  confess  with 
thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  believe  in  thy  heart  that 
God  raised  Him  from  among  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved. 

10.  For  with  the  heart  belief  is  had  unto  righteousness, 
but  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation. 

11.  For  the  Scripture  says,  Whosoever  believes  on  Him 
shall  not  be  made  ashamed. 

Paul's  view  and  the  Jewish  view  of  salvation  by  "right- 
eousness" (v.  5)  are  here  discriminated.  They  are  discrimi- 
nated in  three  particulars.  Paul's  speech  would  become  con- 
fused if  we  did  not  recognize  the  fertility  of  his  figure,  (i) 
**  Say  not  in  thy  heart,  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  " 
This  is  an  echo  of  a  Proverb,  "  AVho  hath  ascended  up  into 
heaven  or  descended  ?  "  (Prov.  30:  4;  see  Author's  Com.).  The 
words  are  Messianic.  Paul  has  the  idea  of  Solomon.  Somebody 
has  had  to  do  great  things.  His  first  point,  therefore,  against 
Israel  is,  that  they  are  taking  on  themselves  far  too  much  the 
work  of  the  Almighty.  ^^Righteousness  "  (v.  5)  would  have  been 
nothing  without  an  atonement  ;  and  to  bring  Christ  down,  as 
God  and  Man,  and  to  raise  Christ  up  "by  exceeding  greatness 


298  ROMANS. 

of  power"  (Eph.  i  :  19)  "from  among  the  dead"  of  our 
fallen  race,  had  to  be  done,  but  what  had  the  Jews  to  do  with 
it  ?  Then  the  first  intimation  of  Paul  was  that  the  Jews  took 
too  much  upon  them  of  the  great  first  agencies  necessary  to 
their  salvation.  It  was  as  easy  to  raise  Christ  up  as  it  was  to 
raise  them  up,  and  as  a  work  of  supernatural  power  they  had 
nothing  to  contribute.  "Faith,"  therefore,  placed  this  mat- 
ter in  a  right  light.  (2)  Faith,  secondly,  placed  all  matters  in 
a  right  light.  There  was  no  requisite  but  faith.  This  point  is 
often  harped  upon  in  Scripture.  The  burden  of  its  appeal  is, 
''Thou  art  careful  and  troubled  about  many  things."  Christ 
said.  If  any  man  say,  Lo  here  is  Christ,  or,  Lo  there,  go  not  after 
him.  "  Why  as  though  living  in  the  world  are  you  subject  to 
ordinances?"  (Col.  2:  20).  This  Paul  everywhere  presses, 
(i)  The  first  point  therefore,  was,  that  great  things  had  to  be 
done,  but  they  were  not  the  persons  to  do  them.  (2)  The 
second  point  was  that  but  one  thing  has  to  be  done,  so  far  as  is 
in  the  scope  of  the  sinner's  responsibility.  And  now  again  (3) 
a  third  point  was.  That  that  one  thing  is  **  faith."  <<  Say  not  in 
thy  hearty''  who  shall  do  things  utterly  beyond  human  account- 
ability, but  do  one  little,  infirm,  reasonable  thing  to  bring 
near  you  the  help  of  the  Redeemer.  Paul  knew  perfectly 
well  that  they  could  not  do  even  that  one.  But  there  is  the 
point  where  God  chooses  to  begin  with  His  people.  "Who- 
soever shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved  " 
(v.  13).  In  the  more  simple  human  sense,  that  we  can  do  ; 
but  in  the  more  important  and  divine  sense  we  will  not  even 
do  that.  Paul  begins  there  as  the  low  down  region  where  God 
chooses  to  move  upon  His  people.  "  Say  not  in  thy  heart  "  who 
will  do  this  or  that  thing,  either  (2)  wholly  indifferent,  or  (1) 
divine  and  impossible,  but  (3)  do  this  thing,  go  humbly  to  God 
under  the  direction  of  me  His  servant,  and  God  will  listen,  and 
bless  your  humblest  petition  for  help. 

^^ Faith''  becomes  saving  ^^ faith'*  where  the  feeblest  '^ call'' 
of  the  terrified  and  convicted  sinner  becomes  the  feeblest  trust 
of  the  penitent  and  loving  child  of  God.  True  faith  has  this 
moral  differentia.     There    is   much   in  Scripture    to   establish 


CHAPTER  X.  299 

that.  Christ,  when  decrying  "  Christ  here  "  or  *'  Christ  there," 
says,  "The  Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  We  are  not  to 
seek  it  in  ordinances,  but  earnestly  in  moral  light.  And  what 
He  distinctly  means  is  fixed  by  a  simile.  As  the  lightning 
shines  all  over  Heaven  (Matt.  24:  2-]),  so '' righteousness"'  is 
no  wretched  act,  like  circumcision,  but  an  illumination  every- 
where within  the  heart,  and  Paul  tells  just  where  it  begins, 
viz.,  in  a  '' call''  upon  God,  whatever  you  choose  to  name  it, 
in  the  way  of  seeking  or  dependence.  Paul,  in  fact,  has 
returned  to  the  simple  idea,  that  if  a  man  wishes  to  be  saved, 
circumcision  is  nothing  (i  Cor.  7  :  19),  just  as  baptism  is  noth- 
ing, but  he  must  find  out  that  he  is  a  sinner,  and  then  seek 
"the  righteousness  which  is  from  faith;'*  the  meaning  of 
which  now  is  very  conspicuous.  It  is  not  *'  the  righteousness 
which  is  from  law  ;"  for  though  that  is  as  good  as  any  other, 
it  cannot  be  engendered.  The  law  cannot  move  us  to  a  gen- 
uine righteousness.  To  bestow  that  is  a  miracle.  It  must  be 
the  gift  of  the  Almighty.  And,  therefore,  it  must  be  a  ''right- 
eousness (or  moral  cleansing) /rt^z/z/tz/V//."  It  is  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  God  wherein  God  chooses  that  it  shall  begin.  Faith, 
when  righteous,  is  itself  its  beginning.  That  moral  "light- 
ning" which  shines  from  one  part  of  a  man's  conscious  sky  to 
another  begins  in  ''faith  ;  "  the  common  "faith  "  of  the  law 
changing  under  its  own  prayer  into  the  moral  and  saving 
"faith  "  of  the  regenerating  Gospel. 

Let  us  clear  up  now  some  notable  expressions. 

"Law"  (v.  5);  any  laiu.  There  is  no  article.  The  Bud- 
dhist law,  where  it  embraces  morality,  would  save  a  man  if  he 
were  actually  turned  to  it.  But  what  is  to  turn  him  to  it  ? 
Turning  or  converting  a  man  is  the  very  acme  of  the  Gospel. 
Christ  becomes  the  only  accomplishment  for  the  law  ;  for 
Moses  says  that  a  man  who  has  obeyed  "la7i>"  shall  live 
therein,  and  no  man  will  obey  law  except  by  the  help»of  Christ, 
and,  what  is  more  specific  still,  without  acknowledging  Him. 

This  acknowledgment  may  be  very  obscure.  But  even 
Socrates,  if  we  are  to  suspect  that  he  may  have  been  saved. 
or  Cornelius,  or,  going  back  to  a  much  obscurer  time,  Abra- 


300  ROMANS. 

ham,  or,  choosing  still  more  strikingly,  Lot,  must  have  had 
some  Gospel  ;  that  is,  they  must  have  recognized  their  own 
sinfulness,  and  must  have  looked  upon  God  as  in  some  way 
an  adorable  Redeemer. 

'■''Therein  "  (v.  5);  that  is,  the  man  who  does  righteousness 
shall  live  not  l^y  but  ^'m"  his  righteousness.  His  righteous- 
ness shall  be  his  life  (Prov.  19  :  23  ;  see  Com.  on  Prov.  ///  /oc). 

^'Tke  righteousness  which  is  frofn  faith.''  The  righteousness 
is  faith.  Faith  as  effused  with  love  is  the  dawning  righteous- 
ness, and  is  in  fact  of  the  nature  of  the  only  righteousness 
that  even  God  can  manifest.  There  is  but  one  lightning  that 
flashes  over  the  heavens.  And  we  remember  that  Abraham's 
faith,  whose  only  imperfection  was  its  sinfulness,  was  hailed  as 
a  first  fruits,  and  was  reckoned  as  far  as  it  went  as  a  righteous- 
ness (Jas.  2  :  23).  Abraham,  made  perfect  in  Heaven,  will 
have  lost  his  sins,  but  will  have  no  other  righteousness  than 
faith  gloriously  made  perfect  in  its  moral  vision.  There  is 
no  morality  in  God  except  the  morality  of  an  omniscient 
emyvucig,  discernment  of  virtue  (Hab.  i  :  13  ;  Jas.  i  :  17). 

'''■Fro?n  faith.''  Why  does  it  not  say  ^'  in  faith  "  ?  Because 
though  righteousness  consists  in  faith,  it  is  also  ^''  from  faith," 
just  as  one  stage  of  holiness  is  produced  by  another.  Right- 
eousness is  not  from  law ;  because  law  cannot  command 
righteousness  so  as  to  induce  it.  There  are,  therefore,  no 
^' ivorks  of  laiv"  (Gal.  2  :  16),  that  is,  works  produced  by  law 
without  a  divine  interference  ;  but  there  is  a  righteousness 
from  faith,  not  simply  because  faith  is  righteousness,  but 
because  God  has  interfered  already,  (i)  Faith  is  His  handi- 
work. Moreover  (2)  it  is  the  point  where  He  commands 
approach  ;  and  (3)  where  He  begins  to  bless  the  returning 
sinner. 

"To  bring  Christ  down."  Men  can  have  nothing  to  do 
with  God's  incarnation.  "Nor  to  bring  Christ  up."  These 
must  be  wrought  without  us, — not  only  our  own  cleansing, 
but  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  death  of  His  dead 
mother.  The  Jews  took  too  much  upon  them  of  their  own 
salvation. 


CHAPTER  X.  301 

"But  what  saith  it?"  The  real  arena  of  work,  now  that 
all  is  finished,  is  in  the  acquiescence  of  the  conscience.  We 
are  to  obey  Christ.  And  for  this,  which  must  be  childlike, 
"the  word  is  nigh  us"  (v.  8).  I  do  not  mean  that  we  can 
do  this  without  God.  But  here  it  is  that  we  must  expect  God. 
The  tree  cannot  grow  of  itseif,  but  it  cannot  grow  at  all  at  its 
trunk.  It  must  gather  at  its  roots,  and  at  its  outmost  foliage. 
And  there  it  cannot  grow  of  itself.  It  spreads  itself  to  the 
actinic  ray,  and  it  drinks  by  its  rootlets  in  the  earth.  It  could 
not  live  without  nature  ;  but  here  is  where  it  is  to  expect 
nature.  It  is  not  to  go  up  to  Heaven,  but  it  is  to  drink  just 
where  God  bids  it.  And  our  tree-life  reads  thus: — "The 
word  is  nigh  thee."  That  is,  the  truth  that  God  uses  to 
bless,  is  close,  like  the  carbon  of  the  air.  And  there  is  present 
the  actinic  ray;  that  is,  God  is  always  striving  to  bless  (Gen. 
6:3;  Job  7  :  18).  "That  if  thou  wilt  confess  with  thy 
mouth  that  Jesus  is  Lord."  Infinitely  far  from  meaning.  If 
thou  wilt  just  say  so.  But  if,  in  Oriental  phrase  (Matt.  12  : 
34),  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  thou,  a  morally  changed 
man,  hast  thy  conscience  opened  to  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  as  Paul 
expressed  it.  If  thou  wilt  "  believe  in  the  Lord  "  (Acts  16  :  31); 
and,  if,  repeating  that  idea,  thou  shalt  "believe  in  thy  heart 
that  God  raised  Him  from  among  the  dead,  thou  shalt 
be  saved."  *  Here  is  no  talisman  for  a  superstitious  conver- 
sion, but  here  is  the  lowly  door  where  men  are  to  enter  into 
the  Kingdom.  We  are  to  learn  that  we  are  sinners  ;  and,  with 
the  word  in  our  mouth  that  gives  direction  for  our  salvation, 
we  are  to  seek  (xod  just  there  :  "For  with  the  heart  belief 
is  had  unto  righteousness,  but  with  the  mouth  "—Notice 
the  ''but''  (df).     Faith   must   necessarily  be  of   ''the  heart;** 


*  We  will  not  repeat  the  interpretation.  See  6:  4;  8  :  34.  The  great 
chrism  of  Christ  which  made  Him  Chfistos,  was  not  resurrection  from  the 
grave,  but  that  raising  from  among-  the  dead,  wrought  by  the  Godhead 
that  was  incarnate,  which,  with  sighs  and  tears  and  wrestlings,  separated 
Him  from  among  sinners,  and  made  the  child  of  a  dead  woman  escape  her 
sinfulness,  and  slowly  rise  from  among  the  dead,  even  in  the  respect  of 
"  infirmity  "  and  being  "  tempted,"  by  a  gradual  probation  (see  again  Heb. 
5  :  7.  8  ;  2  :  10). 


302  ROMANS. 

for  as  moral  faith  it  amounts  to  righteousness  ;  but  it  must 
not  stop.  It  will  show  itself  in  the  hands,  or,  to  invoke  the 
Oriental  simile  (Heb.  13  :  5  ;  i  Jo.  4  :  2,  3),  it  will  spring  to 
the  lips.  It  will  pervade  our  whole  nature.  See  how  far  Paul 
has  traveled  from  the  idea  that  descent  or  circumcision  can  be 
the  question  of  pardon. 

12.  He  is  ready  now  for  another  step.     Men  are  all  alike: — 

12.  For  there  is  no  difiference  of  Jew  or  Greek,  for  the 
same  Lord  of  all  is  rich  unto  all  who  call  upon  Him; 
13.  For  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  saved. 

"Call."  This  is  just  such  another  word  as  "-confess"'  (v.  9); 
only  it  is  still  more  superficial.  Dreadful  snares  have  been 
spread  in  the  church  like  those  in  Israel.  "  This  is  my  cove- 
nant," God  told  the  people, — "  Every  male  child  shall  be  cir- 
cumcised "  (Gen.  17  :  10).  Men  have  played  wild  with  the 
text,  just  as  Roman  Catholics  have  with  "  This  is  my  body  " 
(Matt.  26  :  26).  The  deadliest  snare  of  all  is  in  this  word 
'■^  caliy  Men  are  not  to  be  pardoned  by  simply  crying  out  to 
God  ;  any  more  than  they  are  to  be  saved  by  the  water  of 
baptism.  On  the  contrary,  God  warns  against  such  idea 
(Matt.  7  :  21).  But  it  is  appalling  how  many  are  waiting  for 
just  that.  When  men  are  launched  from  a  gibbet  exultant 
from  an  over-night  forgiveness  after  a  mere  terrified  ''  call,'' 
they  owe  their  delusion  to  an  abuse  of  just  such  texts.  We 
are  to  'Mook  and  live."  But  it  is  a  *Mook  "  very  different 
from  that  of  thousands  in  our  communions,  and  involves  a 
moral  beholding  of  Christ.  It  is  a  "(receiving  of)  the  love  of 
the  truth"  (2  Thess.  2  :  10).  This  very  passage  (v.  10),  tells 
us  that  it  is  *■'■  with  the  heart  belief  is  had  ujito  righteousness" 
And  though  we  may  go  to  Christ  in  terror,  we  must  go  at  last 
in  love,  for  it  is  only  when  the  'V^//"  is  touched  with  what  is 
moral  that  it  has  fastened  upon  Christ,  and  borne  away  from 
Him  an  actual  salvation. 

Paul's  emphasis,  however,  is  upon  the  word  "  all "  (ttcc, 
vs.  II,  13).  His  use  for  the  text  is  to  mingle  Jew  and  Gentile 
(v.  12).     And  now  he  takes  another  step  : — 


CHAPTER  X.  303 

14.  How  then  can  they  call  on  Him  in  whom  they  have 
not  believed?— 

His  argument  is,  If  all  who  *'  call "  are  to  be  saved,  those 
who  are  expected  to  -  call "  must  be  preached  to.  He  wishes 
to  defend  his  ministry  to  the  Gentiles.  That  is  his  specific 
object;  and,  mark  you,  he  has  been  appealing  (vs.  11,  13)  to 
their  own  Scriptures.  If  in  your  own  Scriptures  it  is  said  that 
"all"  (TTdc)  7c>/w  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved'' 
(v.  11),  and  that  "all"  (rraf)  who  believe  ''shall  not  be  made 
ashamed^  why  do  you  object  to  me  for  ministering  to  the 
Gentiles?  For  "how  can  they  call  on  Him  in  whom  they 
have  not  believed? 

14— But  how  can  they  believe  in  Him  of  whom  they 
have  not  heard?  and  how  can  they  hear  without  a 
preacher^  15.  And  how  can  they  preach  except  they  be 
sent?  as  it  is  written,  How  beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them 
who  preach  the  gospel  of  good  things  ! 

We  cannot  tell  how  many  heathen  have  been   saved.     We 
do  not  know   whether  Cornelius  (Acts  10  :    i,  etc.)  had  ever 
heard  of  Christ.     If  He  had,  would  it  not  have  been  mentioned 
(Acts  10  :  35)  ?     Abraham  and  Job  and  even  Peter  (Acts  i  :  6) 
cannot  have  known  as  we  do  of  a  Redeemer.     It   is  to  the 
point  to  say  that  this  passage  teaches  nothing  on  the  question. 
Paul  had  said.  All  that  believe  on  Christ  (v.  11),  and  all  that 
call  upon  His  name  (v.  14),  shall  be  saved  ;  and  all   churches 
agree  that  everything  about  Christ  is  a  powerful  engine  ot 
salvation.     But  Paul   does  not  speak  to  the  other  point.     He 
only  argues,  If  the  Holy  Ghost  has  taken  the  pains  to  tell  us 
that  the  revelation  of  Christ  may  be  the  salvation  of  any,  why 
do  you  object  to  me  for  saying  that  preaching  Him  may  be  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  ?    If  all  who  call  upon  Him  will  be  saved,  why 
not  all  hear  of  Him?   for  "how  can  they  believe  on  Him 
of  whom  they  have  not  heard?    and  how  can  they  hear 
without  a  preacher?    and  how  can   they  preach  except 
they  be  sent?"     And  how  welcome  to  the  Divine  Mind  must 
this  work  anvwhere  be  ;  for  "it  is  written,  How  beautiful 
are  the  feet"  (that  is,  how  noble  is  the  activity,  2  Sam.  22: 
34)  "of  them"  (''that  preach   the  gospel   of  peace,"  E.  V., 


304  ROMANS. 

said  to  be  spurious,  see  Re.)  "who  preach  the  gospel  of 
good  things"  (Is.  52:  7). 

16.    But  they  did  not  all  obey  the  gospel— 

Compactly  put  in  is  the  idea  that  they  were  aHke  in  another 
particular : — All  to  be  preached  to,  but  few  reached  and 
rescued. 

16.— For  Isaiah  says  :— 

Quoting  their  own  Scriptures, — 

16.— Lord,  who  has  believed  what  we  had  for  them  to 
hear  ? 

Paul,  showing  the  same  peculiarity  of  proving  everything  by 
their  Hebraistic  writings,  goes  on  sententiously  to  other  points. 
If  Isaiah  cries  out  so  passionately,  "  Lord,  who  has  believed 
our  a/co^" — ^^  our  hearmg"  or,  as  we  have  been  free  to  trans- 
late, "  what  we  had  for  them  to  hear,"  then  we  have  inspired 
warrant  for  two  other  things,  first,  that  "  belief"  was  to  have 
come  "from  hearing,"  and,  second,  that  "the  hearing,"  in 
this  case,  was  "  by  a  word  of  Christ."  This  was  well  argued 
enough,  for  the  chapter  which  that  verse  begins  was  the  cele- 
brated chapter  of  the  eunuch  which  he  was  reading  sitting  in 
his  chariot,  and  which  helped  so  very  much  to  supply  the  faith 
which  Philip  recognized  when  he  undertook  to  baptize  him. 
The  next  verse  includes  these  two  points  : — 

17.  Therefore  the  belief  comes  of  hearing,  but  the  hear- 
ing by  a  word  of  Christ. 

We  easily  finish  the  chapter.  Paul  makes  out  four  lesser 
points  :— First,  everybody  did  hear,  and  it  was  Jew  and 
Gentile  alike.  Second,  the  Jews  knew  the  fact  ;  for,  recol- 
lect, in  saying  these  things,  he  is  solely  proving  them  out  of 
their  own  Scriptures.  Thirdly,  they  had  been  uttered  by 
their  own  prophets  more  boldly  than  had  been  done  by  Paul. 
And,  fourth,  the  Israelites  themselves  had  been  prominent 
above  the  the  rest  in  the  bitterness  with  which  they  had 
repelled  the  gospel.  These  four  points  are  a  sufficient  account 
of  the  four  next  quotations,  and  their  intention  by  the  apostle. 


CHAPTER  X.  305 

18.  But  I  say,  did  they  not  hear  ?    Rather 
Their  sound  went  out  into  all  the  earth, 
And  their  words  unto  the  ends  of  the  world. 

19.  But  1  say,  Did  not  Israel  know  ?    First  Moses  says : 

I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  that  which  is  no 

nation ; 
By  a  foolish  nation  will  I  anger  you. 

20.  But  Isaiah  is  very  bold  and  says:— 

I  was  found  of  them  that  sought  me  not ; 

I  was  made  manifest  to  them  who  asked  not  after  me. 

21.  But  to  Israel    he  says :— All  day  long  did  I  spread 
forth  my  hands  to  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people. 

It  will  be  seen  how  all  these  authorities  illustrate  Paul's 
text,  ''For  there  is  no  difference  between  Jew  and  Greek''  (v. 
12),  and  h(;w  he  has  already  guarded  the  twentieth  verse, 
**I  was  found  of  them  that  sought  me  not;'*  for  this, 
nakedly  uttered,  would  be  a  dreadful  presentation  of  the  Gos- 
pel. But  he  had  already  said  that  there  was  "  no  difference 
between  Jew  and  Greek,  for  the  same  Lord  over  all  (was)  rich 
unto  all  that  call  upon  Him  "  (v.  12).  This  seeking,  or  prayer, 
or  coming  to  God,  or  calling  upon  His  name,  or  asking  after  Him, 
as  we  may  choose  to  give  it  a  designation,  was  just  the  thing 
that  distinguished  men  where  Jewish  blood  did  nothing.  Paul 
would  hardly  deny  that.  And  therefore  the  expression,  "I  was 
found  of  them  that  sought  me  not"  (v.  20)  is  unbearably 
mistaken,  unless  we  go  to  another  verse.  Paul  had  said  "  that 
the  Gentiks,  not  pressing  after  righteousness,  (had)  ////  their 
hands  upon  righteousness  "  (9  :  30).  And  we  explain  that  in 
the  light  of  both  passages.  The  Jews  for  centuries  had  pre- 
tended to  be  ''pressing  after  "  God.  The  rest  had  done  noth- 
ing of  the  kind.  And,  therefore,  in  the  immediate  neighbor- 
hood of  each  other  we  have  texts  which  will  explain  their 
mutual  meaning.  ''  /  luas  found  of  them  that  sought  me  not  " 
is  in  the  spirit  of  the  expression,  "  Oh  that  men  would  shut  the 
doors  ;  neither  let  them  kindle  fire  on  my  altar  for  nought  " 
(Mai.  I  :  10).  Such  seeking  as  the  Jews  had  done  was  an 
abhorrence  ;  and  the  Gentiles,  freshly  awakened,  would  seek 
differently  from  many  of  the  Jews,  in  that  humble  and  honest 
sense  which  would  obtain  salvation. 


3o6  ROMANS. 


CHAPTER  XL 

1 .  I  say  then,  Did  God  cast  off  His  people  ?  By  no  means ; 
for  I  also  am  an  Israelite,  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  of  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin. 

We  must  not  relax  for  a  moment  the  vigilant  idea  that  Paul 
is  arguing  from  Scripture,  and  not  from  reason.  The  Hebrew 
writings  are  the  gist  of  the  epistle.  He  remembers  just  at 
this  pose  of  his  argument  how  the  Hebrews  will  say,  You  are 
contradicting  the  very  promise  that  made  us  a  nation.  This 
promise  is  given  in  many  forms  (2  Chr.  20  :  7  ;  Is.  41  :  10  ;) 
but  with  his  usual  terseness  of  appeal  Paul  chooses  one  of 
them.  Samuel  had  said,  "  The  Lord  will  not  forsake  His  peo- 
ple "  (t  Sam.  12  :  22)  ;  and  Paul  defends  himself,  actually 
using  the  same  word,  arrw^w  (to  reject),  and  defends  himself 
boldly,  broadly  making  the  appeal,  "  Has  God  cast  off  His 
people  ?  "  and  answers  that  appeal  out  of  their  own  Scriptures, 
and  in  three  particulars,  (i)  First,  God  had  not  ''  cast  off  His 
people  "  in  the  sense  that  none  of  them  could  be  saved  ;  at  least 
it  was  not  for  him  to  think  so,  for  he  was  of  that  '^people  "*  and 
he  was  claiming  to  be  both  a  saint  and  an  apostle.  It  raises  a 
smile,  however,  to  see  the  covert  logic  that  is  included  under 
this  starting  out  of  the  reply.  What  did  they  care  for  Paul  ? 
Not  the  Gentiles,  to  be  sure,  but  the  Jews,  for  whom  these 
sentences  were  given  !  The  very  point  that  he  had  to  establish 
was  that  he  was  a  saint  and  an  apostle.  It  spreads  a 
broad  humor  over  his  speech  when  we  remember  how  he  shuts 
them  in  by  a  sharp  dialectic.  Either  he  was  a  saint,  and  then 
his  first  point  is  gained,  that ''  God  has  (not)  cast  off  His  people  " 
in  such  a  sense  that  all  of  them  must  perish,  or  else  he  was 
not  a  saint,  and  the  more  execrable  his  apostate  character,  the 
more  thoroughly  was  it  true  that  "  God  (had)  cast  off  His  peo- 


*  He  was  not  only  "an  Israelite,"  but  born  so  ;  and  not  only  "of 
Abraham's  seed,"  but,  what  was  further  significant,  he  was  "  of  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin,"  a  house  that  was  the  least  contaminated  by  dispersion  and 
exile. 


CHAPTER  XI.  307 

pie  "  in  the  exact  sense  that  he  taught,  viz.,  that  some  of  them 
were  not  ^' elect''  (v.  5),  and  that  only  the  remnant  were  of  the 
seed  of  Israel  (v.  7). 

(2)  The  second  point  was  bolder  yet.  "  God  (had  not)  cast 
off  His  peopie  "  in  any  sense  which  was  not  originally  in- 
tended : — 

2.  God  has  not  cast  off  His  people  whom  He  foreknew  ;— 

And  he  quotes  for  this  far  back  in  the  time  of  Elijah — "  in 
Elijah"  as  the  saying  is  ;  that  is,  in  the  speeches  and  the 
annals  of  that  greatest  Old  Testament  seer.  Do  not  impeach 
me  of  wrong  when  I  teach  that  a  great  number  of  Jews  will 
perish  ;  and  do  not  say  that  "  God  has  cast  off  His  people  "  in 
a  sense  in  which  He  promised  not  to  (i  Sam.  12:  22),  and  in  a 
sense  in  which  He  defined  a  ''people  "  in  His  mind  as  a  "  people 
whom  He  foreknew;"  for  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Elijah  He 
contemplated  utter  losses  from  among  the  Jews.  "Or;"  this 
is  the  way  he  begins  his  statement.  *'  God  has  not  cast  away 
His  people''  whom  He  ever  intended  or  marked  to  be  His 
people  ;  **  or,"  is  it  that  you  are  thoughtless  of  the  facts  ? — 

2.— Or,  know  you  not  what  the  Scripture  says  in  Elias, 
how  he  talks  with  God  against  Israel,  3.  Lord,  they  have 
killed  thy  prophets,  they  have  digged  down  thine  altars, 
and  I  only  am  left,  and  they  seek  my  life.  4.  But  what  says 
the  oracle  unto  Him  ?  I  have  left  unto  myself  seven  thou- 
sand men  who  have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal.  5.  So, 
therefore,  also  at  the  present  time  there  are  those  left  ac- 
cording to  an  election  of  grace. 

"  Talks  with  God."  <*  Intercession  "  (E.  V.)  is  too  strong  a 
word.  Elijah  would  not  pray  against  his  people.  (See  hTvyx<^i'(j. 
Xen.  Mem.  3,2,  i).  Xpn^aTiafidq  is  not  an  ''answer  of  God" 
(E.  V.  &:  Re.)  ;  and  though  it  may  be  resolved  into  that,  yet 
why  not  say  literally  an  **  oracle  "  ?  "Left  "  (vs.  4,  5).  It  is 
well  to  connect  by  the  same  English,  words  from  the  same 
root  (ActTTw).  Where  the  argument  is  documentary,  it  brightens 
the  connecting  link.  "To  Baal."  Baal  has  the  article,  and 
the  article  is  feminine  ;  but  that  does  not  warrant  us  in  trans- 
lating  ''to  the   image   of  Baal"  i^.   V.).       For  though  dKijv 


3o8  ROMANS, 

{^^ image")  is  feminine,  so  is  Baal  sometimes  (i  Sam.  7:4; 
Hos.  2:8;  Zeph.  I  :  4).  Besides,  if  it  meant  ^*  the  image  of 
Baal'\Y,.  V.),  it  would  be  more  likely  to  stand  ^7  tov  BdaA,  as 
Baal  has  always  the  article  (see  Alford), 

In  all  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle  he  has  not  lost  sight  of 
the  idea  of  "grace."  He  has  stripped  it  of  its  wantonness 
He  has  written  that  exquisite  chapter,  the  ninth,  so  gentle,  and 
so  much  abused.  He  has  caused  God's  goodness  to  pass 
before  us  by  uttering  that  marked  text  ^^  I  will  have  mercy  on 
whomsoever  I  can  have  7nercy''  He  has  spoken  of  foreknowl- 
edge, and  said  '•'-whom  He  did  foreknow,  them  He  also  planned  out 
beforehand''  (8  :  29).  And  yet  neither  by  the  restriction  of 
what  he  calls  "  that  which  is  possible  for  God''  (9  :  22),  nor  by 
the  marking  out  by  foreknowledge  of  what  will  suit  as  an 
**  election  "  among  the  people,  has  he  robbed  God  of  ^^ grace.'* 
He  has  looked  at  the  whole  manward,  and  said,  This  and  that 
and  a  thousand  other  things  are  not  saving,  but  man  deter- 
mines the  question  of  salvation  by  the  instrument  of  ''faith  " 
(Heb.  II  :  6).  And  yet,  confused  as  these  considerations 
might  come  to  be,  he  keeps  a  clear  thread  of  understanding 
held  fast  among  them  all.  "  Faith  "  does  not  interfere  with 
"grace,"  for  'faith  "  itself  is  a  gift  of  the  Redeemer.  More- 
over "/<:z//// "  is  a  recognition  of  "grace."  Foreknowledge  (8  : 
29)  does  not  interfere  with  "grace"  for  foreknowledge  is  the 
mere  omniscience  of  the  Almighty,  determining,  in  His  eter- 
nal purpose,  its  gracious  objects.  All  these  things  make 
"grace  "  more  complete.  And,  therefore,  with  its  entire  volun- 
tariness, and  its  entire  goodness,  and  its  entire  wisdom  built 
upon  the  largest  preconception  of  the  result,  Paul  makes  a 
parenthesis  not  quite  in  the  forthright  line  of  the  other  reason- 
ing. He  is  led  off  into  it  by  that  word  "grace."  (i)  "God 
has  not  cast  away  His  people"  for  He  has  not  cast  away  me. 
Moreover  (2),  He  "has  not  cast  away  His  people"  in  any  sense, 
whom  He  "foreknew"  and  for  this  Paul  had  called  into  the 
account  abundance  of  their  writings.  He  is  to  present  (3)  a 
third  point  (v.  11) ;  but  before  he  reaches  it  he  goes  off  upon 
a  side  consideration. 


CHAPTER  XI.  309 

e.  But  if  it  be  of  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works  ;  oth- 
erwise grace  is  no  more  grace. 

The  whole  system  of  the  Jews  is  toppled  over  by  this  asser- 
tion. Paul's  bitterness  against  "  works  "  expends  itself  usually 
in  two  directions  ;  first,  upon  that  whole  system  of  **  works  " 
which  could  be  brought  about  in  a  man  by  the  mere  direction 
of  the  law  ;  and,  second,  that  maze  of  ceremonies  which  had 
grown  to  be  a  trust.  Paul  is  not  so  often  as  we  think  allu- 
ding to  the  tnerit  of  works,  or  a  trust  to  diny  perfect  righteous- 
ness which  could  satisfy  the  law,  but  he  is  denying  certain 
sources  of  holiness.  Good  works  cannot  spring  up  by  the  mere 
teaching  of  the  law  (2  Cor.  3:6);  nor  could  good  works  be 
engendered  by  the  mere  emblems  of  the  gospel  ,Gal.  5  :  6). 
"If  it  be  of  grace."  That  is  " //  //  be  graced  It  is  the 
material  dative.  "^j'"(E.  V.  &:  Re.)  is  just  the  furthest 
word  possible.  "  Then  it  is  no  more  of  works."  <*  It  is  no 
more  out  of  works."  The  word  is  Ik.  If  faith  in  the  soul  is 
even  itself  a  '^ grace,''  then  "  //  is  no  more  from  7ciorks."  That 
is,  to  state  it  in  its  simplest  sense,  "  works  "  in  the  soul  are 
themselves  a  '■'•  grace,''  and,  therefore,  must  be  engendered 
graciously  ;  all  that  Paul  would  deny  is  that,  first,  the  deca- 
logue, and,  second,  and  least,  the  ceremonies  of  the  Jews, 
could  teach  a  man  'faith,"  instead  of  his  resorting  for  it 
directly  and  at  once  to  the  "-grace  "  of  the  Divine  Redeemer. 

The  parenthesis  would  be  too  heavy  if  the  remainder  of  the 
verse  (E.  V.;  see  the  MSS.)  were  allowed,  but  all  seem  satis- 
fied that  that  is  spurious. 

Paul  goes  on  then  to  the  very  harshest  quotations.  It  is 
natural  that  he  should  do  so.  He  would  not  choose  such 
language  if  it  were  his  own,  but  he  is  assailing  them  out  of 
their  own  Scriptures.  What  he  is  laboring  to  beat  down  is 
the  idea  that  God  has  not  cast  away  His  people  in  a  sense  of 
giving  over  to  death  millions  of  Israelitish  worshipers.  In 
the  quotations,  dreadful  things  appeared  :  first,  that  men  were 
damned  who  were  seeking  not  to  be  ;  second,  that  in  this  pro- 
cess of  damnation  God  actually  "  hardened  "  their  hearts  ; 
third,  that  He  did  this  by  giving  them  *'  a  spirit  of  slumber ;" 


3IO  ROMANS. 

and,  fourth,  and  worst  of  all,  that  saints,  delivered  by  what 
Paul  calls  ^^ grace,''  are  to  rejoice,  or,  what  seems  to  be  the 
meaning,  are  to  exult  and  to  imprecate  curses,  and  that  in 
the  most  unfeeling  and  bitter  form. 

Here,  of  course,  is  a  passage  where  the  cause  for  calling  it 
up,  and  the  responsibility  for  defending  it,  are  quite  different 
things.  Paul  is  talking  of  a  people  who  were  already  begin- 
ning their  schemes  to  destroy  him.  His  strong  point  was 
their  own  law.  He  could  only  tenderly  appeal  where  they  held 
divine  truth,  taught  from  childhood,  and  sounding  in  set  sen- 
tences of  speech  in  their  synagogues  and  on  every  Sabbath. 
Provoke  them  as  he  might,  he  never  could  provoke  them  as 
against  their  law.  When,  therefore,  the  time  had  come  when 
such  a  thing  as  a  lost  Jew  must  be  acknowledged,  and  that 
not  simply  by  a  Gentile,  but  the  rather  and  as  a  far  more 
important  thing,  under  the  teaching  of  an  inspired  apostle,  by 
the  true  Israelite,  and  even  by  the  lost  Jew  himself,  it  was  a 
thing  to  be  supposed  that  he  would  pick  out  strong  verses  ; 
and  if  their  bitterness  was  to  be  explained,  he  would  leave 
that  to  the  skill  of  their  scribes,  only  pressing  the  fixed  and 
the  inevitable  in  his  quotation  : — 

7.  What  then?  That  which  Israel  seeks  for,  that  he 
obtained  not ;  but  the  election  obtained  it,  and  the  rest 
were  hardened.  8.  Even  as  it  is  written,  God  has  given 
unto  them  a  spirit  of  slumber,  eyes  not  to  see,  and  ears 
not  to  hear  unto  this  day.    9.  And  David  says,— 

Let  their  table  become  a  snare  and  a  chase, 
And  a  stumbling-block  and  a  punishment  unto  them ; 
10.  Let  their  eyes  be  darkened  that  they   may  not   see, 
And  bow  down  their  back  always. 

Comment,  however,  may  follow  the  more  immediate  pole- 
mic. The  ruder  the  assault  upon  their  prejudices,  the  better. 
And  as  missiles  are  sometimes  left  rough,  in  order  that  they 
may  tear  the  wound,  so  Paul  counts  it  sufficient  to  quote  their 
own  books,  and  leave  the  terrible  sentences  to  go  in  urt^ex- 
plained.  And  yet  he  himself,  and  especially  in  that  ninth 
vchapter,  has  given  the  means  of  explanation,     (i)  God  has 


CHAPTER  XL  311 

indeed  refused  what  His  people  deliberately  sought  after;  but 
Paul  has  already  shown,  that,  in  the  first  place,  the  object  that 
they  sought  was  wrong,  viz.,  "  a  Uuv  of  rig/ifcousncss  "  (9  :  30), 
rather  than  righteousness  itself  ;  and,  second,  that  the  metliOd 
was  mistaken;  they  sought  it  not  by  faith  (9:  32).  (2)  In  regard 
io'^an  election,''  and  in  regard  to  "  ^z//  election''  which  seemed 
to  have  the  hard  character  of  an  arbitrary  choice  (9  :  15,  22)^ 
Paul  has  smoothed  that  entirely.  He  has  represented  it,  and 
that  in  a  very  intelligent  manner,  as  guided  by  foreknowledge. 
^^  IVhom  He  did  foreknow  them  He  also  planned  beforehand  "(^: 
29);  and  then,  to  show  exactly  how  that  foreknowledge  oper- 
ated, he  has  left  us  to  see  that  it  did  not  interfere  with  His 
sovereignty,  but  that  it  guided  it,  and  the  2'is  a  ter^o  in  all  king- 
ship being  His  love,  it  led  Him  into  those  mysterious  depths  (8: 
38,  39)  which  could  not  be  revealed  to  men  (Ex.  -^y.  23),  but  in 
respect  to  which  He  had  long  ago  given  assurance  to  Moses  that 
He  would  foreknow  as  men  and  elect  as  saints  and  convert  as 
sinners  the  last  man  of  the  race  that  was  possible  in  His  eternal 
Kingdom.  This  was  a  large  excuse.  But  to  the  Corinthians 
he  had  gone  further.  He  had  explained  (3)  what  was  meant 
by  hardening  the  heart  (2  Cor.  4:  4).  James  had  already  said 
(i:  13),  "  Let  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted 
of  God."  And  Paul,  in  this  text  for  the  Corinthians,  speaks 
plainer,  and  shows  that  this  blinding  of  the  sinner  is  altogether 
privative.  It  is  not-doing,  rather  than  doing.  '*  In  whom  the 
God  of  this  world  "  (and  it  is  a  thousand  pities  that  this  has 
been  considered  not  God  but  the  Devil) — "  In  whom  the  God 
of  this  world,"  that  is,  the  Supreme,  if  we  may  follow  Calvin, 
"hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  which  believe  not,  eia  ro /z^ 
avydaai,  "  SO  that  there  do  not  shine  to  them  the  light  of  the 
Gospel  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God."  It 
would  be  a  hard  thing  that  God  could  not  direct  His  own 
activities.  And  when  He  condescends  to  tell  us  that  He  does 
the  best  He  can,  and  does  not  "//<z«  out "  a  people  till  He 
"foreknows"  the  consequences  (8:  29),  the  rhetoric  after  that 
is  of  little  moment.  If  an  inspired  poem  calls  hopeless  impen- 
itence, pouring  upon  a  people  a  spirit  of  slumber  (Is.  29:  10), 


312  ROMANS. 

the  harshness  makes  little  difference  after  Paul  has  distinctly 
uttered  those  generous  sentences.  And  so  of  the  last  point  (vs. 
9^  lo)  : —  (4)  Men  would  upset  the  Bible  on  the  ground  of  the 
imprecatory  Psalms  (Ps.  109:  7-15,  17-20).  In  fact,  to  our  sur- 
prise, Barnes,  who  is  sober  in  many  things,  is  guilty  of  this: — 
''  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  many  of  those  imprecations 
were  wrong.  David  was  not  a  perfect  man  ;  and  the  Spirit  of 
inspiration  is  not  responsible  for  his  imperfections"  (Com. 
Rom.  in  loc.)  !  Better  certainly  than  giving  up  the  Bible  to 
men's  own  judgment  (for  if  David  in  devotional  Scripture  is 
not  to  be  trusted,  then  Paul  !  then  anybody  !  Where  is  the 
TToi-arw  in  any  of  the  revelation?),  is  it  to  remember  that  the 
imperative  in  the  East  is  an  emphatic  prediction.  When  I  say, 
even  in  our  own  land,  '*  There,  now,  you  just  go  to  the  dogs  !  " 
I  do  not  mean  to  command,  but  to  predict— and  to  deter. 
Christ  was  not  urging  Judas  when  He  said,  "  What  thou  doest 
do  quickly."  And  when  Isaiah  says,  "  Make  the  heart  of  this 
people  fat"  (Is.  6  :  10),  he  was  by  no  means  instructing  in  a 
principle  of  the  pastoral  care;  but  He  was  putting,  in  the  acutest 
form,  the  prediction  of  their  wickedness.  This  Psalm  is  Mes- 
sianic. It  is  quoted  from  (Jo.  2:17;  15:  25),  and  in  the  most 
express  way  as  to  the  vinegar  for  drink  (Matt.  27:  34,  48).  It 
is  utterly  absurd  that  Christ,  who  was  dying  for  the  wicked, 
could  be  uttering  in  importunate  prayer  maledictions  against 
them. 

Paul,  therefore,  may  be  understood  in  his  purpose  (which  is 
to  show  that  a  Jew  may  be  miserably  "  cast  off  "),  without,  as 
the  first  thing,  being  challenged  for  a  meaning  :  for  not  only 
has  he  taken  these  bitternesses  from  the  Jews,  but  he  himself 
has  gone  the  farthest  in  explaining  generously  their  hard 
ideas. 

II.  Paul  comes  now  to  his  third  position.  He  has  said  (i) 
that  Jews  were  not  '' cast  off'' m  the  sense  that  none  were 
saved.  He  has  shown  (2)  that  the  Jews  were  not  ''cast  off'' 
in  the  sense  that  any  perished  who  were  "  children  of  the 
promise"  (9:  8).  And  now  his  position  is  to  be  (3)  that  the 
Jews  were  not  "  cast  off"  in  the  sense  that  any  were,  except 


CHAPTER  XL  313 

for  a  necessary  purpose  of  God,  or  to  bring  about  important 
consequences  in  the  history  of  His  Kingdom. 

To  develope  this  point  he  asks  the  categorical  question  : — 

11.  I  say  then,  Did  they  stumble  that  they  might  fall?— 

The  evident  drift  of  this  inquiry  is,  Does  the  fall  of  anybody, 
and  particularly  of  a  Jew,  take  place  for  the  fall's  sake  ?  or 
out  of  the  resentment  of  God  ?  or,  as  we  are  too  apt  to  imagine, 
out  of  His  "  mere  good  pleasure  "  ?     Paul  replies  at  once: — 

1 1  .—By  no  means ;  but  that  by  their  fault  salvation 
might  be  to  the  Gentiles  to  provoke  them  to  jealousy. 

This  chapter  has  seemed  puerile.  That  one  man's  "fault" 
could  be  the  "salvation"  of  another,  and,  above  all,  that  a 
man's  own  sin  could  save  him,  as,  for  example,  his  being 
provoked  to  jealousy,  seemed  impossible  ;  and  we  confess  to 
a  great  deal  of  study  before  we  could  be  tempted  to  treat  the 
passage.  We  come  to  these  results: — First  (i),  that  Paul  does 
not  mean  to  teach  that  he  provoked  the  Jews  to  jealousy 
**in  order  to  save  some  of  them"  (v.  14).  On  the  contrary, 
this  was  a  part  of  the  apostle's  argument.  The  Jews  were 
furious.  They  were  hunting  him  in  all  parts  of  the  earth. 
And  well  they  might.  He  had  stood  by  them  in  trampling  the 
faith,  and  had  incontinently  turned  traitor.  Doubtless  they 
attributed  to  him  the  lowest  principle.  Now,  to  handle  such 
a  case  demanded  unspeakable  carefulness.  We  have  seen 
how  he  pleaded  against  them  their  chiefest  idol  ;  I  mean  '*  the 
law,''  which  the  Jew  was  always  worshiping.  Quoting  from 
that  is  the  strength  of  our  epistle.  It  is  an  unnoticed  clever- 
ness in'Paul  how  he  turns  against  them  their  own  furious  feel- 
ing. He  does  not  conceive  it  broadly,  or  flash  it  on  them  in 
an  ungoverned  sense  ;  but  he  unearths  it  out  of  their  own 
Law-giver.  Who  notices  the  sentence  '^  I  will  provoke  you  to 
jealousy  by  them  that  are  no  people'"  (10  :  19  ;  Deut.  32  :  21)  ? 
Paul's  recurrence  to  that  very  word  ■!TapaO]'>-6u,  is,  very  much  like 
all  his  other  sentences,  an  appeal  to  their  cherished  writings. 
If  he  were  not  persecuted,  he  would  not  be  a  prophet.  And, 
therefore,  he  returns  to  the  expression.     In  the  present  text. 


314  ROMANS, 

it  does  not  mean  that  their  fault  was  the  heathen  man's  salva- 
tion, in  such  a  sense  as  that,  by  a  sort  of  ricochet,  in  saving 
him  it  might  save  them  also  ;  but  simply  that  it  was  fulfilling 
their  Scripture.  We  cannot  see  that  it  was  a  wholesome 
thought  that  provoking  a  man  to  jealousy  would  save  him. 
But  we  do  see  that  rousing  the  Jew  to  the  discovery  that  his 
very  fury  was  predicted,  and  that,  as  is  expressed  again  just 
below,  Paul  might  by  his  ministry  to  the  Greeks  provoke  him, 
as  the  prophets  had  foretold,  and  also  save  him  (v.  14),  would 
be  consistent  teaching,  and  strictly  in  the  vein  of  all  Paul's 
Old  Testament  appeals. 

But  then  on  the  other  hand  (2),  one  man's  fall  being 
another  man's  recovery,  if  not  too  broadly  stated,  holds 
out  a  thought  easily  discernible  in  many  Scriptures.  Every 
man's  fate  is  to  minister  to  the  gospel.  If  he  lives,  he 
will  bless ;  if  he  dies,  he  will  not  curse  (Lu.  19  :  24). 
Solomon  has  this  thing  in  wonderful  cleverness  of  speech. 
He  calls  the  saved  man  the  rich  ;  and  he  calls  the  lost  man 
the  poor.  And  he  does  this  in  many  unnoticed  and  gospel 
asseverations  (Prov.  28  :  8,  11  ;  29  :  16,  see  Com.).  "  The  rich 
and  the  poor  meet  together,"  he  says,  the  idea  being  that 
they  are  necessary  in  the  developments  of  heaven.  And  he 
adds,  confirming  his  profound  idea,  '*  the  Lord  is  the  Maker 
of  them  all  "  (Prov,  22  :   2). 

Now  in  this  epistle  to  the  Romans  it  is  not  hard  to  illus- 
trate these  important  considerations.  Paul  says,  "  For  this 
very  purpose  (viz.,  one  of  "  mercy,''  v.  16),  have  I  raised  thee  up, 
that  I  might  show  i?t  thee  my  power  "  (v.  17).  The  old  prophets 
spoke  of  giving  "  men  for  them  "  (Is.  43  :  4).  And  Paul  says, 
"  But  if  God,  willing  to  explain  the  wrath,  &c.,  &c.,"  (9  :  22). 
Temperately,  and  in  carefully  expressed  ways,  we  are  to  learn 
from  the  passage  that  the  damnation  of  Israel,  like  every  other 
historical  event,  would  be  overruled  for  good,  and  that  the 
contumely  of  the  Jews  would  not  interrupt,  but  further,  the 
breaking  down  of  walls,  and  the  broader  dissemination  of 
Messiah's  mysteries. 

**  But "  {6k)  is  the  next  word  in  the  Greek.     Paul  is  expect- 


CHAPTER  XI.  315 

ing  to  explain,  not  only  that  they  did  not  stumble  for  the  very  • 
sake  of  the  fall,  but  as  Jews  nationally  they  had  not  stumbled 
that  they  should  fall  at  all.  They  had  lapsed,  or  been  guilty 
of  a  ''faulty''  but  their  purpose  as  a  people  had  all  to  be  ful- 
filled. We  must  understand,  as  incident  to  the  whole,  that 
'^  glory,  honor  and  peace  (was  to  be)  to  the  Jew  first''  (Rom.  2  : 
10).  The  gospel  was  to  begin  at  Jerusalem  (Lu.  24  :  47).  Juda- 
ism was  not  to  lose  by  its  harsh  tutelage  ;  but  for  generations 
to  come  was  to  furnish  root  and  branch  in  the  great  "olive 
tree."  And  if  its  casting  away  was  to  be  helpful  to  the  Greek, 
more  abundantly,  by  every  principle  of  light,  its  return  would 
be,  whenever  in  any  age  or  place  it  discerned  the  gospel.  This 
is  what  Paul  is  busy  upon  in  the  verse  that  follows  : — 

12.  But  if  their  fault  be  wealth  for  a  world,  and  their  loss 
wealth  for  Gentiles,  how  much  more  their  fulness  ! 

13.  "But"  is  the  opening  word.  Paul  sterns  to  remember 
that  he  is  speaking  not  to  the  Jews,  but  rather  in  the  great 
Western  Capital  to  a  Gentile  mass.  He  ventures  the  same 
ideas  therefore  in  an  adjusted  method  : — 

13.  But  I  am  speaking  to  you  Gentiles.  On  the  one 
hand,  therefore,  to  the  degree  that  I  am  an  apostle  of  Gen- 
tiles I  honor  my  ministry.  14.  If  in  any  way  I  provoke 
to  jealousy  my  own  flesh,  and  save  some  of  them. 

Such  influences  were  honorable  in  themselves.  The  pro- 
voking was  prophesied  of  (see  10  :  19),  and  the  saving  had 
already  begun,  and  one,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  to  be  con- 
nected too  closely  with  the  other.  "  I  honor  my  ministry  " 
because  or  "  for"— 

15.  For,  if  the  casting  away  of  them  be  a  reconciling  of 
a  world,  what  shall  the  receiving  be  but  a  life  from 
among  the  dead  ? 

The  rescue  should  be  rejoiced  in  as  for  itself. 

16.  "  On  the  other  hand  "  we  should  suspect  as  much  from 
all  the  array  of  the  history.  Israel  had  always  been  a  holy 
nation  to  God.  God  had  always  converted  all  the  true  Israel. 
Paul  had  put  his  hand  upon  the  key   when   he   had  asserted 


3i6  ROMANS. 

that  there  was  much  advantage  in  being  a  Jew,  and  explained 
it  by  the  one  speech  that  "///<?  oracles  were  believed'*  (3  :  2). 
That  was  the  acme  of  their  blessing.  Not  that  they  were  con- 
verted as  a  race  ;  but  that  they  were  converted  as  a  race  more 
than  any  other.  And  that  this  work  would  go  on.  "  On  the 
other  hand  ;  "  {6i)  responding  to  the  ^kv  of  the  thirteenth.  "  On 
the  otte  hand''  Paul's  ministry  was  honorable  as  diverted  from 
his  race,  and  ^^ on  the  other''  it  was  hopeful  as  to  that  race 
itself,  because  now  and  for  some  time  after,  there  was  every 
sign  in  that  race  itself  of  eminent  blessing,  because, — 

16.  On  the  other  hand  if  the  first  fruits  be  holy,  then 
also  the  lump;  and  if  the  root  be  holy,  then  also  the 
branches. 

This  seems  to  be  a  profound  acknowledgment  that  holiness 
in  one  age  of  a  land  is  to  bless  it  and  not  curse  it  in  another. 
Holiness  never  curses.  So  the  idea  of  a  first  fruits  was,  that 
they  were  an  earnest  (Eph.  i  :  14).  Breaking  off  of  the  lump 
(Num.  15  :  20,  21)  meant  that  of  the  rest  there  should  be  a 
blessing.  Such  was  the  inspired  metaphor.  And  the  Jews 
responded  to  it  in  their  present  condition.  They  still  had 
advantages  (3:1,  2).  Having  furnished  all  converts  in  the 
past,  they  furnished  most  in  the  present.  And  Paul,  from  the 
general  principles  of  grace,  would  argue,  not  that  all  Jews 
would  be  saved,  for  Judaism  in  a  very  serious  respect  had 
been  "broken  off;"  not  either,  as  some  believe,  that  all  will 
be  who  are  living  at  the  last  day  ;  but  that  many  might  hope 
to  be.  Paul  speaks  in  this  sort  of  fashion  : — ^' What  knowest 
thou,  O  wife,  whether  thou  shalt  save  thy  husband"  (i  Cor. 
7  :  16)?  And,  again,  of  the  progeny  of  such  a  marriage, 
''  Now  are  (your  children)  holy  *'  (v.  14)  ;  by  which  he  does 
not  mean  that  the  children  would  be  saved  (any  more  than  he 
intends  here  that  all  the  Jews  would  be  converted),  but  simply 
that  they  were  likely  to  be  saved,  and  "  holy,"  therefore,  in 
this  promise.  If  the  Jews  had  furnished  an  ai^apxh  to  God, 
quoad  hoc  that  was  a  fine  chance  for  more  ;  and  if  the  root 
(was)  holy,"  no  matter  how  far  back  the  piety,  so  might  "  the 
branches  "  be,  and  so  would  they  be  likely  to  be,  as  of  an  appapuv 


CHAPTER  XI.  317 

of    grace,  however    hid  and  trampled  by  abounding  wicked- 
ness. 

This  is  turned  over  differently  in  his  address  to  the  Gentiles, 
"If  they  (the  Jews)  abide  not  in  unbelief,  they  shall  be 
grafted  in  "  (v.  23).  But  that  is  a  most  important  "  //;  "  and 
it  seems  not  much  helped  by  the  yap  that  follows: — ("For) 
God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again.**  But  let  us  translate 
the  eight  verses  : — 

17.  But  if  some  of  the  branches  were  broken  off,  and 
thou,  being  a  wild  olive,  wast  grafted  in  among  them, 
and  becamest  partaker  of  the  root  of  the  fatness  of  the 
olive,  18.  Boast  not  against  the  branches;  but  whether 
thou  boast,  it  is  not  thou  the  root  bearest,  but  the  root 
thee.  19.  Thou  wilt  say  then,  Branches  were  broken  off 
that  I  might  be  grafted  in.  20.  Good ;  by  unbelief  they 
were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be  not  high- 
minded,  but  fear.  21.  For  if  God  spared  not  the  natural 
branches,  neither  will  He  spare  thee.  22.  Behold,  there- 
fore, goodness  and  severity  in  God ;  upon  them  that  fell, 
severity,  but  upon  thee,  God's  goodness,  if  thou  remainest 
in  the  goodness  ;  otherwise  then  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off. 
23.  But  they  also,  if  they  remain  not  in  unbelief,  shall  be 
grafted  in  ;  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again.  24.  For 
if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive,  wild  by  nature,  and  wast 
grafted,  against  nature,  into  a  good  olive  tree,  how  much 
rather  shall  they  who  are  natural  be  grafted  into  their 
own  olive  tree. 

17.  "The  olive.'*  This  is  Paul's  only  mention  of  ''the 
olive''  as  an  emblem  of  the  church.  But  Zechariah  (Zech.  4  : 
12),  and  John  (Rev.  11:4),  the  former  long  before,  and  the 
latter  long  after,  have  quite  established  the  metaphor. 
"Grafted.'*  There  is  v\o  ^a^ra/tifi^^  in  a  way  like  this.  Graft- 
ing is  from  a  good  tree  set  upon  a  bad.  Paul  reverses  the 
figure  ;  some  say  from  a  habit  in  the  East.  But  if  wild 
branches  were  set  upon  a  decayed  stock,  and  both  were  fresh- 
ened (see  Hodge),  that  still  would  not  be  the  gospel.  Christ 
is  anything  but  decayed.  Besides,  we  doubt  the  result.  And 
it  would  be  what  Paul  disowns.  The  branch  would  be  bear- 
ing the  root,  and  not  the  root  the  branch  (v.  18).     The  main 


3i8  ROMANS. 

feature  of  a  graft  is,  that,  "  broken  off"  from  one  tree,  it  will 
grow  upon  another.  The  Gentile  '■^broken  off''  from  his  own 
people,  is  to  grow  upon  the  Jews,  that  is  upon  that  Great  Jew. 
There  had  *'come  out  of  Zion  the  Deliverer"  (v.  26).  A 
Great  Jew  had  become  church, — Head  and  members  (Eph.  i  : 
23).  And  natural  Jews  had  been  "  broken  off,''  that  inward 
Jews  (2  :  29)  might  h&^^  grafted  in."  Paul  builds  a  challenge  to 
universal  humanity.  18.  "  Thou  bearest  not  the  root."  There 
is  an  ellipsis  in  the  passage.  "If  thou  boast,"  remember — 
or  "if  thou  boast,"  alas  for  you  !  ''Thou  bearest  not  the  root^ 
but  the  root  thee."  20.  "Good:"  a  very  strong  Greek 
expression  {Kalug)  "  beautiful ;  "  or,  as  we  would  say,  "  exactly  !  " 
This  Paul  applies  to  their  conceit, — "The  branches  were 
broken  off  that  I  might  be  grafted  in."  "  Exactly  so,"  says 
the  apostle.  But  the  whole  difference  is  made  by  "faith,"  and 
that  is  a  loving  recognition  of  the  grace  of  the  Sanctified. 
21.  "For  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches"  {KaTo. 
<l>vGtv).  This  word  (pvaig  is  chameleon-like.  Men  are  said  to  be 
"  /eius  by  nature  "  (Gal.  2  :  15),  which  means,  as  here,  "  natu- 
ral  branches"  which  have  actually  to  be  "  broken  off" — so  natur- 
ally do  they  come  under  the  grace  of  God.  Men  are  said  to 
be  dead  "by  nature"  (Eph.  2  :  3),  which  means,  much  more 
emphatically,  by  birth  and  reality  lost.  Men  are  said  to  "  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law*'  (2  :  14),  which  is 
heaven-wide  again.  Men  ''by  nature"  (v.  21)  do  no  such 
thing.  ^^By  ftature"  though  it  is  the  same  word  <pvmg,  means  in 
that  second  chapter  "  by  natural  evidences  "  or  "  under  the  teach- 
ing of  fiatural  facts  "  (Rom.  i  :  20).  We  must  be  on  our  guard, 
therefore,  about  (j>vaL^  wherever  we  see  it.  22.  "Otherwise." 
'ETret  does  not  mean  "  otherwise.''  ^'  Otherwise  "  is  the  proper 
word  to  supply,  but  it  is  another  case  of  ellipsis.  "Then  "  is 
the  sense  of  k-Kei.  And  with  "  othertvise  "  supplied  we  arrive 
at  the  legitimate  sense.  "  Otherwise  (then)  grace  is  no  more 
grace  "  (Rom.  11  :  6).  "  Otherwise  (then)  it  is  of  no  strength 
at  all"  (Heb.  9  :  17)  ;  and  so  in  the  present  passage,  "other- 
wise, then,  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off."  23.  "For  God  is 
able;"  6waT6<;,  the  word  previously  noticed  (9  :  22).     There 


CHAPTER  XI. 


319 


is  nothing  that  fi)rl)ids  Him.     It   will  be  consistent   and  actu- 
ally the  fact  that  many  shall  be  saved. 

25.  This  consistency  which  man  could  not  certainly  deter- 
mine, namely  that  God  could  still  save  Jews,  and  not  let  them  be 
absolutely  cursed,  Paul  wraps  up  under  the  name  of  a  *'  mys- 
tery," which  is  an  old  name  for  anything  that  required  a  spec- 
ial revelation.  It  could  not  be  known  beforehand  that  '*  blind- 
ness (only)  in  part  (would  liappen)  unto  Israel,  while  the 
fulness  of  the  Gentiles  was  being  gathered  in."  Paul  ap- 
proaches this  with  one  of  his  set  phrases  of  appeal  : — "  I  do 
not  wish  you  not  to  know." 

25.  For  I  do  not  wish  you,  brethren,  not  to  know  this 
mystery,  lest  your  thoughtfulness  be  confined  to  your- 
selves, that  blindness  in  part  has  happened  to  Israel  while 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  entering  in. 

What  is  the  real  fact  about  the  gospel  ?  There  is  no  arrest, 
as  far  as  is  doctrinally  revealed,  of  the  full  gospel  to  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  (i:  16).  There  is  no  cessation  of  grace 
(10:  II,  13).  There  is  no  advantage  to  the  Jew  except  thet 
many  believed  (3:  2).  And  there  is  no  supplanting  by  the 
Greek,  except  that  Jew  and  Gentile  were  alike  brought  into  the 
Kingdom  (10:  12).  We  utterly  deny  a  prospective  in-sweeping 
of  the  Israelites.  And  if  any  one  begs  us  for  an  immediate 
reason,  we  answer.  Because  Christ  puts  us  on  our  immediate 
guard  lest  the  Judgment  surprise  us  at  any  moment.  How  can 
that  be  true,  and  all  these  other  things  ?  We  believe  there  is 
no  prophecy  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  And  if  anyone 
is  shocked  at  this,  we  beg  him  to  begin  back  at  the  original 
idea.  If  any  moment  may  usher  the  Redeemer  in  the  clouds 
(Matt.  24:  44;  Lu.  12:  40;  21:  34,  35),  and  the  dead,  small 
and  great,  may  be  judged,  what  mockery  to  stuff  the  time 
with  events.  We  believe  there  is  no  Millennium.  We  believe 
there  is  no  personal  reign.  We  believe  there  is  no  solidarity 
for  the  Jew,  or  geographic  trifling  about  the  rocks  of  Pales- 
tine. And  we  beg  any  one  who  testifies  his  disgust,  simply 
to  answer  one  Question, — How  can  I  be  listening  for  the 
trumpet  (i  Cor.  15:  52),  or  waiting   for  my  Lord    in  "the  air" 


320  ROMANS. 

(i  Thess.  4:  18),  or  supposing  in  my  short  life  that  the  dead 
maybe  raised  (i  Thess.  4:  17),  when  there  are  shoals  of  unfin- 
ished events,  and  the  "  seals  "  and  the  *'  viols  "  and  millennial 
splendor  of  the  church  and  the  restoration  of  the  tribes  and 
the  terracing  of  Palestine,  are  all  to  be  interpolated  before 
my  rising  ?  If  I  had  to  be  hanged,  and  it  might  be  instantly, 
and  the  knock  at  my  cell  be  at  any  moment,  it  would  have 
a  queer  influence  to  know  that  a  new  jail  had  to  be  built, 
and  no  end  of  events  happen  before  I  or  anyone  else  could 
ascend  the  scaffold.  We  believe  all  these  unveilings  are  pic- 
torial gospels,  and,  as  in  this  very  passage  that  we  treat,  there 
is  some  Greek  that  turns  aside  the  superstition  that  has  been 
imagined. 

"  Confined  to  yourselves."  There  is  a  difficulty  about  the 
MSS.  The  majority  read  -napd  (E.  V.).  The  weightier  read  tv 
(Re.),  and  are  adopted  by  later  scholars.  The  expression 
^p6vLfioi  (v  or  (ppovc/Ltoi  napd  is  exceedingly  important  in  another 
passage  (12:  16).  We  do  not  think  the  meaning  '^  wise  in  your 
own  conceits''  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  brings  out  the  mind  that  was 
intended.  The  word  Trapd  means  befoj-e,  as  before  a  judge  (see 
Jelf).  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  seems  to  be  that  we  are 
not  to  be  thoughtful  nobis  judicibus.  And  as  making  our- 
selves the  judge  is  very  apt  to  make  the  award  for  ourselves^ 
this  seems  to  be  the  main  idea  of  the  reasoning.  Don't  imagine 
the  Jew  to  be  given  up,  lest  ye  be  thoughtful  only  for  your- 
selves. Solomon  says,  '^  Be  not  wise  by  thine  own  eyes  "  (Prov. 
3:7;  LXX.  TTapdceavTC)),  that  is,  by  looking  at  things  through 
your  own  vision.  And  when  we  come  to  the  important  pas- 
sage (12:  16),  we  shall  find  that  this  understanding  is  vital. 
Paul  will  be  giving  a  recipe  for  rejoicing  with  them  that  do 
rejoice,  and  weeping  with  those  that  weep  ;  and  he  will  end 
causally  in  this,  "Be  not  thoughtful  for  (rrapd)  yourselves." 
''Blindness  in  part."  That  is,  the  Jews,  like  everyone  else, 
are  some  of  them  saved  and  some  of  them  lost.  "  While." 
Not  "  until "  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  Here  is  where  the  ''Restoration  " 
idea  is  imagined.  "A;tP'c  oi)  may  mean  "7£'////^"  (Heb.  3:  13;  2 
Mace.  14:  10).    So  may  the  aorist  subjunctive,  uakWr),  have  the 


CHAPTER  XI. 


321 


bearing  imputed  to  it  (Jelf,  §.401,  3,  Obs.  i).  "And  so  all 
Israel  shall  be  saved."  Jews  are  to  be  gathered  ''while'' 
Gentiles  are  being  gathered  ;  and  so  ''all  Israel"  not  in  the 
"  Restoration  "  sense,  but  in  the  widest  sense  (Jo.  10:  16),  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  are  to  be  converted  and  gathered  in.  "  The 
children  of  the  flesh,  those  same  are  ?iot  cliildren  of  God '\g\  8). 
"They  are  not  all  Israel  that  are  of  Israel  "(9:  6).  "  He  is 
not  a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly"  (2:  28).  And,  therefore, 
Paul  has  given  us  abundant  scope  to  look  for  such  passages 
as  this.  "All  Israel"'  (will  have  been)  saved''  when  Jews  have 
been  going  in  "while"  Gentiles  were  going  in,  and  all  Jews 
"inwardly"  (2:  29),  whether  Greeks  or  Israelites,  shall  have 
accepted  each  his  place  in  the  everlasting  Kingdom. 

26.  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved  "— 

Now  there  is  a  further  logic  in  the  clause  that  follows.  Paul 
had  said  that  God  never  "forehieio  "  any  other  Israel  than  the 
men  who  were  converted.  He  draws  in  now  the  further 
thought  that  the  very  "covenant"  of  God  was  expressed  and 
intended  only  "when  (he  took)  away  their  sins":— 

26.— As  it  has  been    written  :— 

There  will  come  out  of  Zion  the  Deliverer ; 
He  will  turn  away  ungodlinesses  from  Jacob. 

27.  And  this  covenant  with  them  on  my  part 
Is  when  I  take  away  their  sins. 

Paul  quotes  pregnantly;  sometimes  from  three  or  four  pas- 
sages digested  into  one.  He  has  in  this  quotation  three  or 
four  points  to  fix.  First,  that  salvation  comes  out  of  Zion. 
There  were  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  two  beautiful 
figures — one  Moriah,  the  other  Zion.  These  landmarks  are 
kept  well  apart  in  Scripture.  Moriah  was  the  temple  site,  and 
the  temple  was  for  the  exhibition  of  the  Almighty.  David 
memorably  expresses  it  when  he  says,  **  In  His  temple  every 
whit  of  it  (marg.)  uttereth  glory"  (Ps.  29:  9).  The  Jew,  when 
he  wanted  to  inquire,  inquired  in  the  temple  (Ps,  27:  4).  Zion 
was  a  very  different  metaphor.  Zion  was  the  seat  of  kingship. 
Moreover,  it  was  the  seat  of  kingship  that  was  granted  to 


322  ROMANS. 

Jerusalem.  When  the  King  came  in  person,  He  began  at 
Jerusalem  (Lu.  24:  47).  When  the  apostles  began  to  minister, 
it  was  '•'to  the  Jeiv  first''  (Acts  3:  26).  And  there  was  great 
wisdom  in  this,  Paul,  when  he  inquired  for  synagogues  (Acts 
13:  5;  14:  i),  knew  where  were  the  great  key-points.  And  this 
eminent  beginning  was  often  prophesied.  "  The  Lord  bless 
thee  out  of  Zion  "  (Ps.  134  :  3).  "  The  Lord  shall  send 
the  rod  of  thy  strength  out  of  Zion  "  (no  :  2).  These  were 
all  sources  for  the  inspired  quotation.  The  song  exclaims, 
"  Oh  that  salvation  were  come  out  of  Zion  "  (Ps.  14  :  7).  And 
Paul,  as  the  first  thing,  was  quick  in  the  concession  that  the 
Jews  began  the  light,  and  sent  it  prosperously  out  of  their 
Holy  Hill.  But,  secondly,  the  very  object  of  the  light  was  to 
turn  them  from  their  transgressions.  They  were  no  favorites 
of  the  Prince,  but  enemies.  This  was  wonderfully  marked  in 
all  the  prophetic  passages.  ''  The  Redeemer  (should)  come  to 
Zion,"  but  how  ?  not  to  the  Jews  as  Jews,  but  distinctly  as  is 
summarized  in  Paul's  quotation,  "  To  them  that  turn  from 
transgression  in  Jacob  "  (Is.  59  :  20).  And,  third,  the  very 
term  of  the  "  covenant,'*  and  that  anciently  delivered,  was 
that  it  was  only  a  ^^ covenant''  with  the  actual  subjects  of  its 
blessings.  ''  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the 
house  of  Israel, — I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts  " 
(Jer.  31  :  2iZ)'  Recollect ;  this  was  their  own  Old  Testament 
script.  And  it  agreed  with  all  the  rest  of  his  positions. 
"  God  (had)  not  cast  away  His  people  whom  He  foreknew  "(11  : 
2)  ;  and  Paul,  obscurely  somewhat,  because  he  is  brief,  takes 
in  all  these  bearings  under  that  word  "  when  "  (v.  27).  *'  And 
this  covenant  with  them  on  my  part  is  when  I  take  away 
their  sins." 

28.  According  to  the  gospel,  indeed,  they  are  enemies  for 
your  sakes  ;  but  according  to  the  election  they  are  beloved 
for  the  fathers'  sake. 

We  are  shown  the  folly  of  *'  electing  love  "  as  conceived  of 
as  a  distinct  affection.  There  are  but  two  loves,  benevolence 
and  esteefn  j  I  mean  but  two  sorts,  outside  of  family  affection  ; 
and  what  a  fine  support  to  this  idea  that  we  find  God  in  this 


CHAPTER  XI.  323 

particular  sentence  loving  and  hating  the  same  people.  We 
have  already  explained  (9  :  13)  that  this  rhetoric  of  inspired 
men  is  a  terse  way  of  expressing  a  mere  likeness  to  love,  in  the 
matter  of  its  consequence.  "  All  they  that  hate  me  love  death  " 
(Prov.  8:  36).  "According  to  the  gospel,"  that  is,  the  great 
announced  facts  of  the  heavenly  message,  *'  they  are  enemies 
for  your  sake."  That  is,  they  will  perish,  like  their  fathers, 
if  they  do  not  believe  ;  and  perish  in  certain  discoverable 
senses  for  the  sake  of  you  Gentiles  ;  that  is,  in  opening  your 
way  ;  just  as  all  the  buried  talents  are  given  to  all  the  im- 
proved talents  (Matt.  25  :  28)  in  ten  thousand  senses  in  nature 
and  in  grace.  **  But  according  to  the  election,"  that  is,  for 
the  very  purpose  for  which  they  were  originally  chosen,  and 
with  the  same  results  as  have  always  happened,  the  Jew  will 
gain  by  his  original  calling  as  a  people.  They  had  furnished 
the  very  Christ  of  prophecy,  and  the  very  saints  for  all  the 
apostleships. 

29.  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repen- 
tance ; 

And  if  they  did  not  continue  to  be  first,  it  must  be,  like  death 
in  the  Wilderness  (Josh.  5  :  4),  in  strange  contrast  with  their 
triumphs  at  Migdol. 

30.  For  as  you  once  did  not  believe  God,  but  now  have 
obtained  mercy,  these  being  unbelieving,  31.  So  also  now 
these  have  been  unbelieving,  that  with  your  obtaining 
mercy  they  also  might  obtain  mercy. 

^^  Through''  (E.  V.)  and  ''by''  (K.e.)  are  unnecessarily 
strong  in  both  these  verses,  for  there  is  no  ek  or  6id,  and  the 
nouns  are  in  the  dative.  The  dative  often  implies  the  mere 
condition  of  the  circumstances  (see  Goodwin).  That  is  enough. 
We,  therefore,  employ  the  participle.  "  These  being  unbe- 
lieving." We  might  exaggerate  beyond  the  sense  the  idea  of 
the  sin  of  the  Jews  as  promoting  grace  for  the  Gentiles. 

32.  For  God  has  shut  up  all  in  unbelief  that  He  might 
have  mercy  upon  all. 

So  Paul  finishes  this  catholic  argument.     "All"  is  a  very 


324  ROMANS. 

favorite  word  with  him.  We  are  all  sinners  (3  :  23),  and  all 
punishable  for  sin  (2  :  9),  and  all  people  that  may  believe  (i  : 
16);  we  are  «// equal  under  the  law  (2:  11),  and  a-// open  to  the 
gospel  (10  :  12,  13).  We  are  all  certain  to  reject  it  (i  Cor.  2  : 
14).  We  are  all  instructed  by  the  law  (2:  14),  and  all  incapa- 
ble of  being  saved  by  it  (Gal.  2:  21).  We  must  ^//be  saved  by 
works  (2  :  13),  but  we  must  all  be  led  to  do  them  by  grace  (8  : 
7  ;  10  :  4),  and  not  by  the  mere  commandment  (3  :  20  ;  8  :  3). 
"  Works  of  the  law  "  in  the  sense  of  what  the  law  could  stir  us 
up  to  do,  no  one  will  perform  (3  :  19),  and  therefore  by  the 
law,  left  nakedly  to  itself,  is  only  "  the  knowledge  of  sin  "  (3  : 
20).  All  Israel  will  be  saved  in  the  sense  that  God  ever 
intended  Israel  (11  :  26).  All  else  will  perish  (11  :  7).  All 
will  perish  from  unbelief  (9  :  32)  ;  and  all  not  directly  but  by 
His  "  knowledge  "  (v.  2>Z)  beforehand  "  God  has  shut  up  in 
unbelief; "  so  that  «// who  are  saved  are  objects  of  His  regen- 
erating "mercy." 

33.  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God !  how  unsearchable  are  His  judgments, 
and  His  ways  past  finding  out !  34.  For  who  has  known 
the  mind  of  the  Lord?  or  who  has  been  His  counselor ? 
35.  Or  who  has  first  given  to  Him  and  will  have  it  returned 
to  him  again?  36.  For  out  of  Him  and  by  means  of  Him 
and  with  respect  to  Him  are  all  things.  To  Him  be  the 
glory  forever.    Amen. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

1.  I  beseech  you,  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercy  of 
God— 

I  am  careful  of  this  collocation.  I  wish  to  bring  out  all  the 
beauties  of  the  passage.  If  I  had  translated  certain  verses 
(see  chap.  9)  as  they  have  always  been  translated,  no  wonder 
that  this  appeal  should  go  on  escaping  us.  What  have  we 
been  taught  to  believe  ?  Why,  that  God  does  as  He  pleases  ; 
not  in  the  sense  of  a  wise  pleasure,  or,  if  we  might  properly 


CHAPTER  XI L  325 

understand  it,  of  the  ^ood  pleasure  of  Heaven,  but  in  a  sense 
that  has  utterly  destroyed  Paul's  beautiful  argument.  Paul 
had  summoned  one  of  the  spectacles  of  the  gray  past  (Ex.  33  : 
18-23).  No  one  was  more  familiar  with  the  deep  things  of 
the  Almighty.  Doubtless  he  understood  those  pictures  of 
Solomon,  "  It  is  the  glory  of  Gods  to  cover  over  a  thing,  but 
the  glory  of  Kings  to  search  a  thing  out  "(Prov.  25  :  2).  This 
passage  of  our  epistle  is  cousin-german  to  the  words  that  fol- 
low :  "  The  heavens  as  to  height,  and  the  earth  as  to  depth, 
and  the  heart  of  Kings  there  is  no  searching  "  (Prov.  25  :  3). 
Now,  remembering  that  God  was  exhibiting  this  same  truth 
in  dramatic  scenery,  hiding  the  Law-giver  in  a  rock  and  print- 
ing on  him  the  symbol  that  only  God's  '*  back  parts  "  could  be 
revealed,  it  seems  a  distressing  failure  that  the  whole  point  of 
this  should  be  lost  by  our  ruinous  English.  God  had  said, 
"  Only  a  whisper  can  be  heard  of  (me)  "  (Job.  26  :  14).  Solo- 
mon had  said,  God  would  like  to  save  everybody.  It  is  the 
glory  of  God  to  cover  things,  but  of  God  as  King  to  search 
them  out.  Paul  breaks  out  in  the  words  we  have  rendered, 
"  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowl- 
edge of  God !  How  unsearchable  are  His  judgments,"  cov- 
ering over  sorrow  with  the  black  pall  that  Solomon  threw  over 
the  King.  What  a  shame  it  is  that  when  God  gave  the  Law- 
giver the  only  possible  light,  and  Solomon  repeated  it,  and 
Paul  quoted  it  as  his  text,  we  should  have  so  lucklessly 
quenched  it  all.  God  is  absolutely  mysterious  ;  but  what 
matters  that,  if  He  saves  all  He  can  ?  Paul  had  multiplied  this 
in  splendid  verses.  God  cannot  explain,  but  He  can  assert. 
And  He  has  said  "  /  will  have  mercy  on  whomsoever  I  can  have 
mercy.'*  And  Paul  elaborates  it,  that  Providence  is  an  abyss, 
but  that  this  light  plays  over  it.  He  is  doing  all  that  is  ^'pos- 
sible/or Him  "  (9  :  22).  What  could  He  do  more  than  He  is 
striving  to  accomplish  ?  (Is.  5  :  4).  It  is  not  of  the  willing  but 
of  the  mercy  showing  God  (9  :  16).  And  Paul  sums  up  with 
another  glorious  assumption  ; — **  One  man  whom  He  has  a  desire 
after  He  shows  mercy  to^  and  another  tnan  whom  He  has  a  desire 
after  He  hardens ''(g  \   18),  leaving  us    to  the   sad  conclusion 


326  ROMANS. 

that  the  same  merciful  sun  needfully  produces  calm  and 
tempest. 

1.  "I  beseech  you,  therefore,  by  the  mercies  of  God." 
With  the  comments  we  have  given  this  is  a  glorious  appeal. 
Why  quarrel  with  so  kind  a  King?  "  How  unsearchable  are 
His  judgments !  "  And  yet,  under  that  black  night,  He  lets 
this  flash  out  to  us, — I  am  doing  the  best  I  can.  "  The  heart 
of  Kings  is  unsearchable,"  but  down  in  its  hid  depths  this  I 
will  reveal,  that  even  in  such  a  thing  as  eternal  death,  it  is  all 
that  can  be  arranged  :  I  am  ''  not  willing  that  any  should 
perish;  "  and,  still,  eternal  sorrow  is  as  necessary  as  the  very 
substance  of  my  being. 

These  things  in  God  are  also  the  great  things  in  man. 
Benevolence  and  love  of  holiness,  which  are  the  philosophical 
translations  of  love  to  man  and  love  to  God,  are  what  the 
Proverb  calls  "chains  about  our  neck"  (Prov.  i:  9).  Heaven 
would  be  impossible  without  this  chamber  of  man's  best  being. 
And  as  to  the  Almighty,  these  same  two  commandments  supply 
His  life.  They  give  Him  a  reason  to  be.  He  would  not 
create  without  them.  They  supply  His  name,  ''God  is  love." 
They  supply  a  heaven  to  us  ;  for  we  shall  rejoice  at  the 
memory  of  His  holiness.  They  supply  a  heaven  to  Him.  For 
God  could  not  be  happy,  any  more  than  His  creation,  unless 
He  had  Himself  to  think  of,  and  Himself  in  that  noblest  part, 
His  boundless  affection  for  all  His  creatures. 

Now  Paul  puts  his  finger  upon  the  noblest  incentive  to  good 
works  when  he  writes  that  appeal,  ^''By^  the  mercies  of  God*' 
Here  is  a  King  under  enormous  difficulties,  with  a  boundless 
administration,  over  unending  Kingdoms  of  life  and  light. 
There  are  puzzles  in  such  an  administration  that  no  archangel 
could  fathom.  We  might  know  that  there  would  be.  God 
confesses  them.  He  admits  that  there  must  be  "exceeding 
greatness  of  power,"  even  in  our  poor  world,  to  save  us  who 
believe.  Out  of  the  darkness  of  such  a  system  He  cannot 
explain,  but  He  can  protest.  And  He  places  before  our  minds 
for  worship  that  sweetest  of  all  conceptions,  a  God  that  has 
done  the  best  for  everything  since  the  world  was  made;  a  God 


CHAPTER  XII.  327 

that  would  be  broken-hearted  if  He  had  not;  a  God  propped 
up  by  the  expression  "  What  could  have  been  done  more  for 
my  vineyard  that  I  have  not  done  in  it  ?  "  infinite  in  possession, 
if  not  now,  hereafter,  and  infmite  in  work,  if  not  here,  in  the 
ages  future,  and  yet,  more  than  any  mother,  pitying  the  lost, 
and  yearning  over  him  as  though  there  were  none  but  he,  and 
doing  everything  on  earth  He  can  to  save  from  perishing  the 
poorest  and  meanest  of  the  sinful.  Paul's  appeal,  therefore, 
is  based  upon  the  body  of  his  epistle;—''/  beseech  you,  there- 
fore, brethren,  by  the  mercies  of  Goiy — 

l._Tliat  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy, 
acceptable  to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable  service. 

Christ  was  obedient  in  His  death.  We  must  be  obedient  in 
our  life.  "Reasonable."  The  reasons  we  have  been  giving. 
"  If  Ciod  so  loved  us,  we  ought  also  to  love  one  another  " 
(i  Jo.  4:  ii)- 

2.  And  be  not  conformed  to  this  world,  but  be  ye  trans- 
formed in  the  renewing  of  the  mind,  that  you  may  ap- 
prove what  is  the  will  of  God,  good  and  acceptable  and 
perfect. 

"World;"  (aitjv),  literally  meaning  age.  There  may  be  a 
thought  of  that;  for  the  ''world''  is  better  than  its  people. 
But  oiuv  and  K^a/ioccan  hardly  make  out  the  distinction,  for  they 
are  occurring  similarly.  Love  not  the  »co<t^oc,  John  says  (i  Jo. 
2  :  15);  so  that  we  must  give  up  the  formal  distinction. 
"  Renewing ;  "  a  material  dative.  "  Be  ye  transformed,"  not 
**by  the  renewing"  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  but,  as  though  it  were 
beth  essenticc,  ''Be ye  transformed"  in  that  shape,  so  that  it  shall 
consist  "in  the  renewing  of  the  mind."  "Approve."  Not 
"//'d^zr "  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  "Approz'e"  is  nearer  to  the  sense. 
The  greatest  change  upon  our  planet  is  that  by  which  men 
learn  to  ''approve"  God  (Job  42:  6). 

3.  For  I  say,  by  the  grace  given  unto  me,  to  every  one 
that  is  among  you,  that  he  think  not  of  himself  more 
highly  than  he  ought  to  think,  but  that  he  think  so  as 
to  think  soberly,  according  as  God  has  distributed  to 
each  a  measure  of  faith. 


328  ROMANS. 

Paul  gives  himself  as  a  clinic.  Intending  to  refer  every- 
thing to  "grace,"  he  gives  himself  as  an  example;  for 
he  implies  that  it  is  "  by  the  grace  given  unto  (him)"  that 
he  is  led  to  instruct.  Because,  as  one  must  be  "  tra?isformed  in 
the  renewing  of  the  mind''  before  one  could  ''approve''  either 
God  or  man,  so  now  all  thought  or  act  is  to  have  its  "  measure" 
in  the  amount  of  "  faith."  "Of  himself"  is  not  in  the  Greek, 
but  virepcppovEiv  means  to  be  high-minded  (see  the  Lexicons).  Paul 
intends  to  forbid  estimating  anything  above  the  measure  of 
its  piety.  We  are  all  members  of  Christ,  and  are  to  estimate 
our  doings  only  as  they  flow  from  Him. 

4.  For  as  we  have  many  members  in  one  body,  but  all 
the  members  have  not  the  same  ofS.ce,  5.  So  we  who  are 
many  are  one  body  in  Christ,  but,  as  regards  each,  mem- 
bers one  of  another  6.  But  having  gifts  differing  accord- 
ing to  the  grace  which  is  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy, 
according  to  the  proportion  of  faith,  7.  Or  service,  in 
the  service,  or  the  teacher,  in  the  teaching,  8.  Or  the 
exhorter,  in  the  exhortation,  the  giver,  in  simplicity,  the 
ruler,  in  diligence,  the  mercy-shewer,  in  cheerfulness. 

Such  is  the  Greek  ;  and  the  mass  of  italics  (E.  V.)  continued 
in  the  Revision,  are  quite  without  warrant.  And,  at  any  rate, 
where  is  the  great  point  in  saying,  "  Or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on 
our  ministerifig"  1  The  apostle  is  showing  that  we  must 
estimate  ourselves  "  according  to  the  grace  given."  He  teaches 
that  we  are  not  to  boast  in  being  members  of  Christ,  but  to 
ask,  What  sort  of  members  ?  He  sees  that  the  members  of 
the  mystical  church  have  very  different  office;  and  claims  that 
each  particular  office  be  measured  by  its  ''grace  ";  "prophecy, 
by  its  faith ;  service  (by  its)  service ;  the  teacher  by  his 
actual  teaching ;  the  giver,  by  a  sweet  simplicity ;  the 
ruler,  by  diligence ;  the  mercy-shewer,  by  cheerfulness.'* 
Through  this  hard-pan  measuring,  which  is  up  from  the  bot- 
tom and  down  to  a  basis  in  the  actual  grace,  Paul  illustrates 
our  thinking  soberly,  and  rates  successful  service  "as  God  has 
given  to  every  o?ie  the  measure  of  faith  "  (v.  3). 

9.  Let  love  be  without  hypocrisy. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


329 


Notice  the  grammar  of  the  apostle.  Just  below  (v.  15)  it 
will  be  exceedingly  important.  Participles  should  have  their 
proper  sense  ;  for  that  will  give  us  long  sentences  of  an  ex- 
planatory kind,  instead  of  our  chopping  up  the  chapter  into 
short  imperatives. 

9 . — Abhorring  that  which  is  evil ;  cleaving  to  that  which  is 
good  ;  10.  In  love  of  the  brethren  being  tenderly  aJBTection- 
ate  to  each  other;  in  honor  preferring  one  another;  11. 
Not  slow  in  diligence ;  fervent  in  the  spirit ;  serving  the 
Lord  ;  1 2.  Rejoicing  in  hope  ;  patient  in  tribulation ;  urgent 
in  prayer;  13.  Participating  in  the  necessities  of  the 
saints;  hunting  up  ways  to  be  kind  to  strangers;  14. 
Bless  them  that  persecute  you ;  bless  and  curse  not. 

"Abhorring."  The  "evil"  meant  is  the  only  positively 
abhorrent '' i-^v/.'*  The  word  "tenderly  affectionate"  {otU. 
oTopyoi)  means,  usually,  affection  of  near  kindred.  Paul  is  well 
sustained  by  his  Master,  "  For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of 
my  Father,  the  same  is  my  mother  and  sister  and  brother  " 
(Matt.  12  :  50).  ^'  Business"  (E.  V.)  is  quite  too  free  in  the 
■eleventh  verse.  The  word  is  ottovS^,  and  there  can  be  no  objec- 
tion to  what  is  literal,  viz.  /laste,  "  diligence."  Important 
MSS.  have  Katpu  (''  t/mf  "),  which  would  make  quite  a  different 
meaning.  But  "  serving  the  Lord  "  (Kvpiu)  has  the  precedence 
of  claim  ;  and  the  usual  objection  that  it  would  break  what  is 
special  into  a  clause  that  is  too  general,  will  not  hold.  In  the 
heat  of  work  to  remember  that  it  is  for  God,  is  quite  as  spe- 
cial as  the  heat  or  the  work,  and  quite  as  needful  a  waking  up 
as  any  point  of  what  might  seem  more  special  duty.  12. 
**  Urgent "  {irpnanapTepovvTer)  means  />?-t'ssini^  well  ofi.  We  leave 
our  prayers  too  often  like  eggs  in  the  sand.  We  are  to  ex- 
pect, and  insist,  and  inquire,  and  repeat,  and  in  fact  claim, 
when  we  present  a  petition.  Jacob  was  irpooKaprepuv  when  he 
became  a  Prince  in  Israel.  13.  '*  Communicating  to"  (E.  V.  & 
Re.)  is  classic  and  common,  but  no  more  correct  than  "  par- 
ticipating in"  (see  Rom.  15:  27),  and  not  so  expressive. 
"Hunting"  is  more  than  '' ready  to  be  kind"  h^zdMS^  it  is  a 
pursuing  after  occasions  for  it,  as  in  the  chase.     It  is  more 


330  ROMANS. 

than  for  hospitality's  sake  in  its  modern  sense  (E.  V.  &  Re.), 
for  it  is  iox  (^Cko^tviav,  or  love  of  the  stranger.  '^Hospitality'' 
(hospes)  once  meant  that.  14.  "Bless,  &c."  Paul,  usually, 
keeps  the  difficult  duty  to  the  last. 

15.  But  now  a  still  more  necessary  parsing  !  To  give 
his  meaning  Paul  takes  us  out  of  this  catena  of  participles, 
and  shapes  an  infinitive.  There  is  created  a  most  inter- 
esting passage.  Men  have  swept  it  into  the  round  of  mere 
imperatives  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  But  why  ?  It  would  not  be  nor- 
mal. Here  is  a  most  careful  writer.  He  carries  the  logic  of 
precision  to  what  is  high-strained  and  artificial  (Gal.  3:  16). 
Where  could  be  the  motive  for  the  infinitive  (Kalpeiv),  espe- 
cially if  all  these  participles  were  to  be  taken  in  an  imperative 
sense  ?  Paul  would  be  wearied  out  with  a  broken  rhetoric;  and 
with  inevitable  disgust,  would  recoil  from  such  an  infinitive  with 
a  jussive  purpose.  In  fact  there  is  no  such  infinitive.  Kaipetv, 
in  its  use  as  a  salutation,  is  altogether  another  thing.  It  is  a 
declared  and  understood  ellipsis.  We  may  supply  ?jyc).  Mod- 
erns say,  "  Send  greeting^''  till  they  get  tired  of  so  much  formal 
speech,  and  say  simply  "  Greeting  I  "  No  one  pretends  that  that 
gives  it  as  a  participle,  and  with  a  new  efficiency.  Nor  can  we 
quote  Phil.  3  :  16.  On  the  contrary,  that  is  weightily  the  other 
way.  Our  versions  read,  *'  Let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule;  let  us 
mind  the  same  thing  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  The  Revision  omits  the 
half,  but  quoad  the  point  at  issue  they  agree  perfectly.  Yet  when 
we  look  at  the  sense,  both  versions  are  misleading.  Paul  is 
imagining  two  degrees  of  knowledge,  a  knowledge  not  yet 
reached,  and  one  already  imparted.  He  says,  *'  As  far  as  we  be 
perfect  let  us  think  thus;  and  if  in  anything  ye  think  otherwise, 
God  will  reveal  even  this  unto  you.  Nevertheless  whereto  we 
have  already  attained,  in  order  to  walk  orderly  {inji?iitive)  by  the 
same  rule,  in  order  to  think  {infinitive')  the  same,  be  ye  followers, 
brethren,  of  me,  lS:c."  (Phil.  3:  16,  17).  Nothing  could  be  more 
convincing,  or  could  be  more  evincive  of  the  purpose  of  the 
apostle.  And  precisely  similar  is  his  rhetoric  i.i  the  present 
instance.  He  does  not  wish  to  command  rejoicing.,  and  therefore, 
he  does  not  use,  but  scrupulously  avoids,  the  practical  impera- 


CHAPTER  XII.  331 

ative.    And  he  does  not  command,  because  there  is  a  habit  of    . 
holy  writ  which  he  scrupulously  follows.  God  does  indeed  com- 
mand us  to  do  abstract  things.   He  commands  us  to  love  (Matt. 
22  :  37),   and  commands   us  to  hate  (Ps.  97  :    10),  and   com- 
mands u'sto  rejoice  (Phil.  4  :  4),  and  commands  us  to  believe 
(Jo.  14  :   i)  ;  just  as  the  ill  gotten  imp  in  the   fable  commands 
the  poor  man  to  break  his  faggot,  without  instructing   him  to 
take    it   apart.     But  God,  when   He  comes  down   to  practical 
detail,  commands  the    more   voluntary  things,  which    lead  by 
promise  to  those  less    under  the  compass  of   the   will.     For 
example,  He  commands  us  to  repent  ;  but,  instead  of  teaching 
us  to  stand  up  upon  the  floor  and  by  a  sudden  spiritual  wrench 
to  enact  repentance,  God  unravels  to  us  the  means.     He  tells 
us  the   great  method  of  repentance;   viz.  to  beg  God  for    it. 
He  tells  us  the  great  act  of  repentance,  namely,  to  look    for  it 
to  Christ.     He  takes  to  pieces  the  more  abstract  whole,  and 
tells  us  to  pray  and  to  work  for  our  soul's  entire  surrender  unto 
God.     And  now  exactly  so  the  apostle.     The  infinitive  was 
never   more    prescriptively   in     place.      He   does   not   mean, 
''  Rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  ;  because  he 
is  goincr  to  give  directions  how  to  do  it.     He  does  not  send  a 
man  among'the  mourners,  and  say.  Now  "weep:"  or  among 
the  dancers,  a  poor  forlorn  wretch,  and  say,  Now  "rejoice  ;" 
but  he  gives  the  man  the  recipe  for  attaining  to  that  which,  at 
the  start,  would  be  impossible  : — 

15  In  order  to  rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice,  and  to 
weep  with  them  that  weep,  16.  Thinking  the  same  things 
for  each  other,  not  thinking  high  things,  but  being  car- 
ried  along  by  lowly  things,  be  not  thoughtful  just  for 
yourselves. 

This  is  a  Kohinoor.  I  don't  send  you  to  a  spiritual  feast- 
making,  and  command  you  on  the  spot  to  -  rejoice  ;  "  nor'do  I 
admityoutoadeadly  Baca,  and  cry  out  to  you  at  once  to 
"  7C'er/>  ; "  but  I  i^nve  you  directions  for  those  stages  of  approach 
which  fit  you  for  the  act  when  you  arrive.  Thought  is  alto- 
gether voluntary.  Accustom  yourself  to  think  for  other  peo- 
ple.    When  you  make  a  bargain,  think  for  the  other  side.     In 


332  ROMANS. 

scheming  for  your  life,  scheme  for  your  clan  or  for  your  race, 
which  is  perishing.  Like  the  very  fowls  on  your  place  call  up 
the  whole  brood  when  you  find  anything  good.  That  plainly 
is  Paul's  device.  "  In  order  to  rejoice  with  "  other  people, 
learn  the  art  of  thinking  for  them  when  you  are  thinking  for 
yourself.  And  hence  the  Great  Apostle  arranges  other  parti- 
ciples with  even  deeper  knowledge  and  profounder  principle 
as  among  men.  i6.  "Not  thinking  high  things."  Mul- 
titudes think  grand  things  for  others  ;  but,  first,  they  must  do 
grand  things  for  themselves.  Fortune  first  !  and  while  that 
is  making,  they  are  dogs  !  Scholars,  when  they  have  learned, 
merchants,  when  they  are  rich,  the  Congressman,  when  in  the 
Senate,  or  the  miser,  when  he  is  dead,  are  all  going  to  will 
great  things.  The  apostle  forbids  it.  "  In  order  to  rejoice 
with  them  that  do  rejoice,  and  to  weep  with  them  that 
weep,  thinking  the  same  things  for  each  other  (that  is,  the 
same  for  others  that  you  do  for  yourself),  not  thinking  high 
things,  but  being  carried  along  (This  is  very  expressive. 
Taking  things  as  they  come.  Not  what  your  heart  findeth  to 
do  ;  not  what  your  wit  findeth  to  do  ;  but  "  what  your  hand 
findeth  to  do,"  as  Solomon  says),  carried  along  by  lowly- 
things;"— and  then  follows  the  imperative,  "  be  not  thought- 
ful just  for  yourselves." 

Compare  now  any  of  our  English.  ^^Be  not  wise  in  your  own 
conceits''  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  What  is  that  to  the  purpose?  ''Be 
of  the  same  mind  one  toward  another''  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  When  ? 
and  how?  ''Condescend,  ^/r."  (E.  V.).  Why  say,  "to  men," 
and  thus  alter  the  gender  in  the  compass  of  averse?  The 
Revisers  correct  that  much.  How  sad  that  the  way  toward  a 
more  thorough  revision  should  again  be  sealed  up,  and  that 
Paul's  sweetest  conceptions,  like  those  in  the  ninth  chapter, 
should  fall  again  asleep,  without  any  possibility  of  their  charm 
being  laid  bare  for  another  century. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  being  "  wise  in  (our)  own  con- 
ceit." Chapter  eleventh  (v.  25)  is  where  it  translates  (LXX.) 
being  ''wise  by  (our)  own  eyes"  (Prov.  26:  12).  The  prepo- 
sition is  Tzapa,  and  means  before,  as  before  a  judge  (see  Jelf). 

4 


CHAPTER  XII.  333 

''^Thoughtful  before  (ourselves)"  means  too  exclusively  thought- 
ful by  our  oivn  eyes^  that  is,  in  ways  as  we  look  at  it.  ''Be  not 
thoughtful  just  for  yourselves."  That  is,  give  not  yourselves  up 
to  those  views  of  things  which  your  selfish  eyes  will  take, 
instructed  by  a  lapsed  conscience,  and  looking  too  closely  at 
your  own. 

The  apostle  moves  on  now  to  another  exordium,  with  its 
prepositive  participles: — 

17.  Rendering  to  no  man  evil  for  evil;  giving  thought 
beforehand  that  honorable  things  as  from  you  shall  fall 
under  the  view  of  all  men;  18.  If  possible,  as  to  what 
is  of  your  part,  living  peaceably  with  all  men;  19.  Not 
avenging  yourselves,  beloved  ;  on  the  contrary,  give  place 
to  wrath ;  for  it  is  written,  Vengeance  is  mine  ;  I  will 
repay,  says  the  Lord. 

17.  "Rendering:"  dTroJ/Jdi/rff  (see  2:  6).  It  need  not  mean 
recompensing  (E.  V.).  He,  Christ,  did  not  give  again  (E.  V.), 
or  give  bach  (Re.)  the  book  to  "the  servant"  (Lu.  4:  20),  for 
probably  "the  servant"  had  not  given  it  to  Him.  "Things 
honorable  '»  (Re.);  the  same  as  "  things  honest  "  (E.  V.)  in  the 
time  of  King  James.  The  word  has  changed.  Hence  an 
eager  idea  of  Paul  has  to  a  large  extent  gone  for  nothing.  He 
wishes  Christians,  not  only  to  be  correct,  but  noble.  They 
are  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  their  Saviour  (Tit.  2:  10). 
The  obsolescence  has  spoiled  other  sentences.  Peter  says, 
"Having  your  conversation  honest  among  the  Gentiles"  (i 
Pet.  2:  12);  and  Paul, — urging  it  frequently: — "  Providing  (or 
thinking  out  beforehand)  honest  things"  (2  Cor.  8:  21);  then 
changing  to  atuvd  (venerable),  "  whatsoever  things  are  honest  " 
(Phil.  4:8);  or,  changing  again  to  evaxnf^dvuc  {handsomely),  "  Let 
us  walk  honestly"  (13:  13).  It  is  a  pity  under  this  ancient 
English  to  cloak  all  these  fine  texts,  and  especially  that  sen- 
tence of  our  Saviour  "  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men  that 
they  may  see  your  good  works"  (E.  V.  The  word  \s  Ka7.d, 
beautiful.  It  may  not  be  too  late  to  change  this  in  many  parts 
of  the  Bible);  "that  they  may  see  your  handsome  acts,  and 
glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  Heaven"  (Matt.  5:  16).    "As 


334  ROMANS. 

to  what  is  on  your  side."  You  cannot  regulate  the  other 
party.  The  Revisers  still  say,  **  as  much  as  lieth  in  you  "  (E.  V.). 
We  wonder  at  that,  for  it  is  a  tautology.  Paul  had  already 
said,  "  If  (it  be)  possible."  19.  "  Not  avenging  yourselves, 
beloved."  One  of  the  forlornest  mistakes  in  any  doctrinal 
ethics  has  grown  up  under  this  passage.  It  has  been  imagined 
that  God  may  avenge,  but  not  we.  There  has  eventuated, 
therefore,  the  idea  of  a  Vindicatory  Justice,  which  is  a  primor- 
dial attribute  of  the  Almighty.  How  sad  the  consequence  ! 
The  Aztec,  blackening  his  God,  and  smearing  His  semblance 
on  the  earth  with  the  filth  of  his  sacrifices,  is  not  so  blas- 
phemous as  the  Christian,  when,  with  his  enlightened  creed, 
he  attributes  revenge  to  the  Most  High.  The  difficulty  is  not 
hard  to  deal  with.  There  are  but  two  virtues.  The  Bible  is 
constantly  ready  for  that  (Matt.  22 :  40) ;  and  speaking  of  one  of 
them  it  says,  "  Which  thing  is  true  in  Him  and  in  you  "  (i  Jo. 
2:  8).  There  are  but  two  things,  accordingly,  that  are  right 
either  in  God  or  man.  Unless  "vengeance,"  therefore,  is  a 
primordial  trait  in  man,  it  cannot  possibly  be  in  the  instance 
of  the  Almighty.  God  and  man  are  alike  in  the  originals  of 
virtue.  And  if  the  two  sole  righteousnesses  are  love  to  the 
welfare  of  others,  and  love  to  God,  or,  in  God's  instance,  love 
to  that  which  makes  Him  loveable,  viz.,  the  principle  of  holi- 
ness, where  can  there  be  anything  primordial  outside  ? 

To  understand  our  passage,  accordingly,  we  must  distin- 
guish. "  Vengeance  "  has  two  meanings.  It  is  like  the  word 
machinations,  which  may  begin  as  of  what  is  innocent,  but  may 
end  as  of  what  is  bad  and  bitter.  "  Vengeance  "  has  a  noble 
meaning  [vindicare),  and,  what  is  more  to  our  point,  EKdiKsu, 
which  is  what  we  are  directly  to  account  for,  means  to  sef 
right  or  to  arrange  justly.  '*  Vengeance  "  in  its  bad  sense  we 
are  not  to  consider.  Or  rather,  as  ^^  vengeance'' m  its  bad 
sense  is  a  perversion  of  the  other,  Paul,  in  this  whole  passage, 
is  giving  directions  about  eKdU/joic  as  a  dangerous  and  difficult 
work  on  the  part  of  men. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  to  be  weeded  out  of  it  everything 
like  revenge: — 


CHAPTER  XII. 


335 


20.  On  the  contrary,  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him ; 
if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink— 

We   can   illustrate    revenge    here   with    absolute    clearness. 

Man  has  but  two  duties,  (i)  to  love  the  welfare  of  his  fel- 
lows, and  (2)  to  love  the  principle  of  holiness.  Now,  as  resent- 
ment can  flow  from  neither,  resentment  is  positively  forbidden: 
and  as  these  two  duties  have  no  exceptions  whatever,  it  follows 
that  benevolence  must  go  right  on,  oblivious  of  human  injuries. 
To  say.  Undoubtedly,  except  with  the  Almighty,  is  horrible  ! 
There  is  but  one  virtuousness.  And  God  Himself  has  taught 
us  that  there  is  but  one  ;  for  He  says,  enjoining  benevolence, 
**  That  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven;  for  He  makes  His  sun  to  shine  on  the  evil  and  on 
the  good,  and  sends  rain  upon  the  just  and  upon  the  unjust" 
(Matt.  5:  45)- 

Now  a  second  point  will  bring  out  all  the  meaning  of  the 
passage.  'ExfJ/zcvaff.  which  excludes  all  idea  of  resentment,  is  the 
necessary  upholding  and  enforcing  of  eternal  law.  It  is  really 
the  fruit  of  the  two  great  emotions  of  righteousness,  and  not 
itself  a  co-ordinate  desire.  Paul's  sentiment  is.  that  we  are  to 
leave  it  to  the  administration  of  Heaven.  ''  Avenging  {our- 
selves) "  has  two  difficulties  ;  first,  it  favors  resentment  ;  and, 
second,  it  traverses  in  many  cases  God's  forms  of  estab- 
lished vindication  (see  next  chapter).  "  On  the  contrary  {a/M), 
give  place  to  wrath."  We  are  to  notice  at  last  a  real  imper- 
ative leaning  back  upon  its  host  of  participles.  Paul  is  will- 
ing to  imagine  that  there  will  needs  be  anger,  for  he  has  said 
so  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (4  :  26), — "  Be  ye  angry  and 
sin  not."  But  he  commands  us  carefully  to  ^^  give  place  to  "  it, 
and  means  that  we  are  to  stand  still,  and  let  the  wrath  hurtle 
by.  "  Give  place  to''  God's  anger  some  have  preferred  to  say 
(Alford,  in  loc.)\  and  thereby  a  very  innocent  interpretation  has 
arisen.  ^^  Give  place  to''  the  enemy's  anger  some  have  imag- 
ined (Ewald).  It  makes  little  difference.  But  the  recurrence 
of  the  word  bpyij  in  the  next  chapter  (v.  5)  ;  and  the  caution 
that  they  "  must  needs  be  subject,  not  for  the  anger  only,"  but 
"for  conscience  sake"  and  the  objection  that  the  one  meaning 


336  ROMANS. 

is  a  little  too  fierce,  and  the  other  a  little  too  yielding,  carries 
us  back  to  the  first  explication  : — "  Not  avenging  yourselves^ 
beloved  ;  on  the  contrary^  give  place  to  {your  own)  wrath  y  "  and 
he  means  by  that,  Neglect  it,  and  let  it  storm  on  ;  "  for  it  is 
written,  Vengeance  is  mine ;  I  will  repay,  says  the  Lord." 
Not  that  we  ourselves  are  not  sometimes  to  "  repay^''  but  that 
we  are  to  do  it  as  God  does  it,  without  the  wickedness  of 
revenge,  and,  moreover,  as  God  orders  it,  which  we  are  about  to 
explain  in  another  chapter  (13). 

20.  Before  we  reach  that,  however,  we  have  an  interesting 
disclosure.  Paul  had  quoted  from  the  Proverbs,  The  ideas  are 
very  simple.  We  are  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  resentment, 
but  are  to  love  our  enemies,  and  are  not  to  punish  except  as  an 
ordinance  of  the  Most  High  (see  next  chapter).  But  while  the 
thought  is  plain  enough,  the  Scriptural  authority  is  very  remark- 
able. Solomon  had  simply  said,  "  If  he  who  hates  thee  hunger, 
give  him  food  to  eat  ;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  water  to  drink  ;  for, 
shovelling  live  coals  thyself  upon  his  head,  Jehovah  shall  punish 
thee  also"  (Prov.  25  :  21,  22).  The  Seventy  altered  this.  It 
is  singular  that  Paul  should  have  copied  their  alteration  ;  and 
most  singular  of  all,  that  this  copying  on  the  part  of  Paul 
should  have  regulated  our  translators  (E.  V.,  Prov,),  and  that 
they  should  have  copied  the  Septuagint  for  the  Old  Testament 
instead  of  the  original  Hebrew.  Quoting  from  the  Septuagint 
is  not  an  uncommon  inspiration  (11  :  26,  27  ;  i  Pet.  4  :  18)  ; 
and  where  the  Greek  was  proverbial,  it  might  he  useful  in  its 
effect.  In  this  passage,  however,  Solomon  has  the  best  sense. 
"  [Heaping)  coals  of  fire  "  (E.  V.)  has  always  been  an  ungainly 
figure ;  and  the  fierceness  of  that  imagery  everywhere  else 
being  found  to  apply  to  punishment  (Ps.  120  :  40  ;  140  : 
10),  it  ought  in  our  English  Old  Testament  to  be  kept  to  that 
sense,  and  we  hope  will  be  found  in  that  way  in  the  coming 
Revision.* 

For  divine  reasons  no  doubt,  Paul,  however,  stands  as  he 
has  been  written  (E.  V.  &  Re.). 

*  We  since  see  that  it  is  not. 


CHAPTER  XIII.  337 

20.— For  80  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his 
head. 

And  this  cast  of  the  Greek  makes  necessary  a  little  more 
careful  exposition.    Do  not  you  punish,   but  leave   it  to  the 
Most  High.    If  you  keep  sedulously  away  from  being  resent- 
ful, God  is  the  avenger  of  all  such,  and  pours  the  coals  of  vin- 
dication  upon  the  real  offender.    Let  not  that  be  what  you 
pray  for,  but  take  courage  from  the  fact.    In  one  catholic  sen- 
tence afterward  (v.  2i),he  gathers  up  a  single  maxim.  Let  evil 
never  assert  the  mastery.     When  provoked,  let  not  that  drive 
you  to  the  additional  mischief  of  malignity.    And  inasmuch  as 
a  (giving)  place  to  wrath  "   is  a  noble  exercise,  count  that  your 
wealth.     The   sentence    is  to    be  universal.      '^  Overcorne  evil 
with  gooJ"(E.  V.)  is  too  much  the  old   thought  that  we  are 
to  love  our  enemies.     And  ''  Be  not  overcome  of  evil  "   (E.  V.) 
looks   too   much    in  that    connection    like    mere    meekness: 
whereas  it  is  a  direction  of  the  apostle   under  all  calamity. 
Don't  succumb  to  calamity,  but  conquer  it.     Don't  conquer  it 
by  curing  it  and  trampling    it  under    foot,  but    by    placing   it 
under  tribute.     And  don't  levy  upon  it  a  mere  transitory  gain, 
but  a  thorough  transformation  into  blessing.     Notice  all  the 
particles  : — 

21.  Be  not  defeated  under  the  evil ;  but  defeat  the  evil  in 
the  good. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

1.  Let  every  soul  be  arranged  under  authorities  that  hold 
the  higher  place- 
Here  begins  the  denouement  of  the  true  UdUnatc.  We  are 
never  to  punish  out  of  resentment ;  and  as  the  motive  is,  to  be 
useful,  Paul  brings  us  to  the  salutary  idea  of  not  taking  the 
law  into  our  own  hands.  The  translation  should  be  precise  ; 
for  it  avoids  that  horrible  night-mare  of  "  the  divine  right  of 
kings."  If  he  proceeded  to  say,  **  Let  rvery  soul  be  subject  to 
the  higher  powers  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  it  would  drive  us  to  the  ne- 


338  ROMANS. 

cessity  of  qualifying  and  claiming  the  reserve,  viz.,  "  in  case  an 
execrable  sovereign  cannot  be  thrown  off."  But  by  the  Greek 
as  it  is,  we  are  carried  to  the  exact  wisdom  in  the  matter.  Paul 
is  giving  the  very  kernel  of  the  idea  of  government.  We  are 
not  to  avenge  ourselves^  which  would  turn  the  earth  into  a 
Bedlam,  but  we  are  to  let  anger  sweep  on  by  employing  the 
avengement  of  Heaven,  and  by  doing  that,  not  simply  in 
waiting  for  a  vindicating  stroke,  but  by  arranging  "authori- 
ties" which  can  hold  of  the  Almighty. 

1.— For  there  is  no  authority  except  under  God ;  but 
those  that  exist  have  been  arranged  under  God. 

"  Ordained''  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  is  too  strong  a  word,  and  **^/" 
(E.  V.  &  Re.)  is  not  the  connecting  particle.  Nero  was 
''^ordained''  of  God;  and  so  was  Christ  ^^ ordained''  to  be 
crucified  ;  but  God's  grandest  saint  would  have  been  grander 
if  he  could  have  hurled  Nero  to  the  ground.  Paul  did  not 
mean  '^  ordaified."  But,  in  a  way  that  we  can  hardly  improve 
by  comment,  he  meant  just  what  he  has  written.  Men  are 
not  to  be  avenged  piece-meal,  but  are  to  be  "arranged"  into 
governments.  And  then  the  theory  is  to  be,  that  each  is  to 
be  avenged  by  men  above  him,  and  by  an  ^^ arranged'*  author- 
ity. 

2.  So  that  he  who  arranges  himself  against  the  authority, 
is  set  against  the  arrangement  of  God ;  but  they  so  set  shall 
receive  to  themselves  condemnation. 

3.  And  yet,  for  the  first  time,  if  we  attend  now  to  the  exact 
expression,  we  encounter  a  sentence  which  needs  must  have  a 
limit: — 

3.  For  governors  are  not  a  terror  to  the  good  work,  but 
to  the  evil. 

That,  alas  !  is  far  from  being  true  !  So  that  the  earlier  part 
of  the  passage  must  now  be  called  in,  and  must  apply  a  neces- 
sary reserve.  Men  must  arrange  governments.  Paul  is  urging 
that  there  be  no  taint  of  resentment,  and  no  adversity  to 
enemies  except  the  needful  hKSiKTjaiq.  He  insists  that  we  leave 
that  to  Heaven,  and,  where  man  must  interfere,  to  authorized 


CHAPTER  XIII.  339 

government.  He  accents  that  by  the  expression,  "  every 
soul."  Not  a  mortal  must  escape.  There  must  be  *'  authority  " 
with  an  Argus  eye.  Paul  has  a  right  to  be  understood  as 
making  men  responsible  for  the  choice  of  that  '' authority ^ 
And  when  it  has  been  so  chosen  as  to  make  it  reverential  to 
suppose  that  it  is  "  under  God,"  or  when,  as  the  best  that 
can  be  had,  it  holds  the  place  that  can  be  held  by  no  other, 
men  must  submit. 

3.— But  dost  thou  wish  not  to  have  terror  of  the  author- 
ity? Do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise 
of  the  same ;  4.  For  it  is  a  servant  of  God  to  thee  for 
good.  But  if  thou  doest  the  evil,  have  the  terror,  for  it 
bears  not  the  sword  in  vain.  For  it  is  a  servant  of  God, 
an  avenger,  in  matters  of  anger,  upon  him  who  does  the 
evil. 

4.  Paul  means  by  "anger"  (v.  4)  our  "anger";  to  which 
we  were  to  ''give  place''  (12:  19).  We  are  to  '' arrange''  to 
have  it  satisfied  in  a  governmental  way. 

5.  Wherefore  this  arrangement  under  others  is  neces- 
sary, not  for  the  wrath's  sake  only,  but  also  for  the 
conscience  sake. 

We  have  almost  a  completed  picture,  (i)  No  ^' wrath'* 
in  the  shape  of  any  resentment  (vs.  17-20).  (2)  No  wrath 
sporadically  indulged  ipso  judice,  each  man  for  himself.  (3) 
No  wrath,  ordinarily  speaking,  except  under  the  arrangements 
of  government.  (4)  No  *'  ivrath  "  under  government,  however 
prudently  ''arranged,"  out  of  "wrath"  itself  "only,"  how- 
ever innocent,  but  "also"  and  chiefly  out  of  "  conscience" 
toward  God. 

6.  Paul  deftly  supplies,  obiter,  a  thought  on  the  vexed  ques- 
tion of  "tribute"  (Matt.  22:  17).  Men  are  to  pay  it  to  the 
Almighty: — 

6.  For  for  this  cause  ye  pay  tribute  also ;  for  they  are 
executors  of  God's  service,  pressing  earnestly  forward  as 
to  this  very  thing. 

7.  Like  the  treatise  on  ret<enge  {12:  17,  etc.),  and  the  treatise 
on  government  (13:  i,  etc.),  both  of  which  are  first-class,  we  are 


340  ROMANS. 

to  have  from  this  verse  to  the  tenth,  a  still  more  profound 
account  of  the  whole  nature  of  morality: — 

7.  Give  to  all  what  is  owing ;  tribute  to  whom  tribute  ; 
custom  to  whom  custom ;  fear  to  whom  fear ;  honor  to 
whom  honor.  8.  Owe  nothing  to  anybody  save  love  to 
one  another ;  for  he  who  loves  the  other  has  fulfilled  the 
law. 

"Owing."  We  render  this  with  a  part  of  the  verb  to 
^^ owe''  to  keep  up  the  connection.  If  we  say  "  due  "  (E.  V.  & 
Re.),  we  are  in  danger  of  hiding  it  (see  next  verse).  The 
apostle  has  already  represented  that  in  paying  tribute  to  man 
we  are  really  paying  tribute  to  the  Almighty  (v.  6).  He  now 
goes  deeper,  and  makes  clear  the  very  germ  of  ethical  obliga- 
tion. He  says,  "  G-ive  to  all  what  is  owing,"  numbering 
a  whole  list  of  claims:  and  then  winds  up  with  the  doctrine 
that  we  are  not  to  ''  owe  "  anything  (alas  !  alas  !  for  the  silli- 
ness that  would  make  this  mean  that  men  are  not  to  ^^ owe'* 
debts  !).  It  is  the  force  of  the  Eastern  imperative.  It  means 
that  we  do  not  ^^ owe"  anything.  It  is  a  grand  affirmation  of 
morals  that  a  man  cannot  '■^ owe''  anything  but  "love"  the 
one  "  to  another."  The  Greek  piriftzv  forbids  btpeilere  to  be  read 
as  an  indicative;  but  an  imperative  is  the  strongest  sort  of  an 
indicative.  When  the  text  says,  "  Make  the  heart  of  this  people 
fat"  (Is.  6:  lo),  as  English  it  is  infamous,  but  as  Hebrew  it  is  a 
tenfold  indicative.  Paul  simply  means,  You  do  not  "  owe  "  any- 
body anything  but  love.  And  the  belief  that  the  capital  of 
the  world  must  lie  dead,  and  no  man  must  borrow  it,  and  so 
"owe"  anything  to  anybody  ;  that  a  child  must  ^^ owe"  noth- 
ing to  his  father,  or  an  apprentice  to  his  master,  or  a  State  to 
its  inhabitants,  is  silly  beyond  imagination.  We  smirch  the 
Bible  by  such  things.     Paul  immediately  explains: — 

9.  For  this,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery.  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt  not  covet,  and 
if  there  be  any  other  commandment,  it  is  summed  up  in 
this  word,  namely.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self. 

To  give  his  reasons,  let  us  regard  the  clear  sweep  of  the 


CHAPTER  XIII.  341 

passage.  It  is  not  the  whole  law  (but,  really,  if  a  man  keeps 
one  table,  he  will  keep  the  other),  but  it  is  the  whole  essence 
of  mutual  obligation.  Other  Scriptures  have  repeated  it  (i 
Cor.  13:  I,  etc.;  Col.  3:  14).  Truth  and  honor  and  chastity, 
and  respect  for  friends,  and  regard  for  enemies,  intolerance 
for  sin,  and  tolerance  under  wrong  and  harm,  are  summarily 
comprehended  in  this,  as  Christ  long  ago  said  (Matt.  22:  40), 
"  Thou  Shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 

But  Paul  digs  down  deeper,  for  he  gives  this  philosophic 
reason: — 

10.  Love  works  no  ill  to  the  neighbor ;  therefore  love 
is  a  fulfilling  of  law. 

Nor  can  we  parry  this.  It  will  not  do  to  say.  One  excellent 
trait  may  ittiply  the  others,  but  need  not  claim  that  it  includes 
them;  a  saint  utterly  honest  will  be  utterly  chaste  ;  and  Paul 
may  be  right  in  saying  that  a  man  who  loves  cannot  lie,  and 
that  a  man  who  has  benevolent  affection  will  not  be  a  miner 
of  families  or  a  public  scandal.  The  case  must  be  stronger  ; 
not  what  love  implies,  but  what  it  includes.  Paul  means  to  say, 
that  duty  is  made  up  of  love  ;  not  solely  that  love  and  sin  are 
inconsistent  with  each  other,  but  that  sin  is  just  that  thing,  a 
simply  not-loving,  and  that  the  second  table  of  our  duties,  as  he 
intimates  here  (v.  9)  and  elsewhere  (Gal.  5:  14),  is  "summed 
up  "  as  one,  by  benevolent  regard. 

11.  And  this,  knowing  the  occasion,  that  now  it  is  high 
time  for  you  to  awake  out  of  sleep ;  for  now  is  our  salva- 
tion nearer  than  when  we  believed. 

"And  this;  "  referring  to  all  the  summing  up  of  their  duty 
(Chaps.  12,  13).  "High  time"  (E.  V.  ^:  Re.);  simply  upa,  the 
hour.  "  To  awake.  "  Paul  calls  life  "  night  "  (v.  12),  and  im- 
peaches men  of  a  mad  tendency  to  "sleep."  "Salvation." 
This  is  an  old  habit  of  the  Bible,  to  call  conversion  ''salva- 
tion'' (10:  10),  but  to  baptize  with  the  name  afresh  when  we 
are  thoroughly  converted  on  the  day  of  judgment.  We  were 
"redeemed"  nineteen  centuries  ago  (i  Pet.  i:  18);  we  were 
'*  redeemed  "  again  a  few  years  ago  when  we  were  brought  into 


342  ROMANS.  * 

the  Kingdom  (Col.  i:  14);  but  we  are  "redeemed,"  by  a  third 
use  of  the  word,  at  that  unknown  date  which  we  are  to  esteem 
above  all  others  as  "  the  day  of  redemption  "  (Eph.  4:  30). 

12.  The  night  has  gone  forward,  but  the  day  has  drawn 
near— 

The  expressions  are  moderate.  It  does  not  say  ^'  far  spe?it'' 
(E.  V.  &  Re.),  for  that  might  leave  out  the  young.  It  does 
not  say,  "  The  day  is  at  haftd''  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  Paul  draws 
attention  to  the  fact  that  "  the  night"  is  flying  by,  and  "the 
day  "  nearer.  It  is  well  to  notice  the  language  ;  there  has 
been  an  obstinate  opinion  that  Paul  thought  that  the  day  of 
the  Lord  was  at  hand.  Such  misconceivings  of  the  fact 
destroy  the  idea  of  inspiration.  Moreover  Paul  corrected  this 
very  conceit  (2  Thess.  2  :  2).  Paul's  eschatology  was  cer- 
tainly very  simple  : — First,  that  the  parousia  was  the  Judg- 
ment (i  Thess.  4  :  15)  ;  second,  that  men  were  not  alive 
between  death  and  the  Judgment  Day  (i  Cor.  15  :  17-19,  32, 
54;  Heb.  II  :  39,  40)  ;  third,  that  all  that  was  awful  was 
delayed  when  we  left  the  world,  by  a  dreamless  slumber  (Heb. 
9  :  27)  ;  and  yet,  fourthly,  that  death  and  judgment  come 
together  ;  that  is,  that  they  come  together  in  the  dead  man's 
consciousness  ;  the  interval  between  being  lost  as  being  only 
a  dreamless  nothingness. 

To  build,  therefore,  upon  the  Greek  a  mistake  in  Paul  as  to 
one  thing,  is  simply  to  imagine  the  possibilities  of  misappre- 
hension anywhere  ;  and  to  build,  upon  anything  in  Paul,  a  mil- 
lennial idea,  and,  above  all,  a  pre-millennial  advent,  is  to  make 
light  of  Scripture  generally  ;  for  the  Scriptures  are  every- 
where warning  us  of  the  suddenness  of  the  coming  Judge 
(Matt.  24  :  36-44,  50,  51),  and  this  would  be  putting  between, 
no  end  of  intervening  history  (see  com.  11  :  25). 

"  The  night  has  gone  forward,  but  the  day  has  drawn 
near."  That  suits  no  other  idea  than  that  of  this  passing  life. 
"  The  night  has  gone  forward ;''  that  is  ''  the  night''  of  the 
earthly  trial  of  the  clouded  and  darkened  believer.  *'  The  day 
has  drawn  near ;''  that  is,  ^' the  day''  oi  dying,  when,  like  a 
telegram  under  the  sea,  heaven  will    seem  to  come  at  once. 


CHAPTER  Kill.  343 

" //  is  high  time  Z^;  <z7i'^/(v,"  because  ''salvation^'  for  the  first 
time  worthy  of  the  name,  will  break  upon  us  instantly,  as  far 
as  we  shall  consciously  know,  and  that  bright  hour  comes 
each  instant  nearer  since  the  day  that  we  believed. 

A  noble  book  might  be  written  on  the  one  subject  of  spirit- 
ual "light."  Solomon  calls  it  ''wisdom''  (Prov.  i  :   2).      (3ur 
Saviour  often  speaks  of  it   as  ''knowledge''  (Jo.  17  :  3).     It   is 
often  coWtd''  understanding"  (Prov.  16  :   16  ;  Is.  6  :    10).     It 
is  really  nothing  more  than  conscience.     When  a  man's  con- 
science is  enlightened,  which  is  the  only  change  at  the  moment 
of  the  new-birth,  that  is  really  the  new  born  condition  of  holi- 
ness, or  piety,  or  godliness,  or  righteousness,  or  moral  appre- 
ciation and  benevolent  regard,   just  whatever  we  choose   to 
call  it.     "  Love"  {2  Thess.  2  :   10),  in  the  sense  of   esteem,  is 
but   the   enlightened     discernment   of   the  sweetness   of   the 
truth,  or,  if  we  would  speak  less  abstractly,  of  the  sweetness 
of  the  moral  object  which  the  man  is  looking  at.     Grace,  after 
that,  is   a  progress.     Give  a  man  light,  and  the  love,  of  the 
First  Table,  is  not  even    a  sequence.     It  is  the  appreciative 
regard  itself.     Faith  is  the  same  thing,  with  certain  elements 
of  confidence  turned  upon  a  revealed  Helper.     Repentance  is 
the  same   light,  turned   upon   sin,   instead   of  upon  holiness. 
Nothing  is  more  needed  just  at  present  than  to  simplify  piety 
by  calling  it  "  light."     The  sinner  passes   from  "  darkness  "  to 
"light"  (Acts  26:   18);  and  to  say,  No,  light  follows  after- 
ward ;  or,  A  man  must  have  faith  first,  and  that  will  bring 
moral'appreciation,  is  the  curse  of  the  Reformed.     Conversion 
is  ''light"  in  answer  to  prayer,  and  that,  in  its  very  dawn,  is  a 
moral  "  light."     That  explains  its  being  the  fruit  of  a  regen- 
erating work.     To  say,  as  our  Protestants  do,  Faith  first,  and 
moral   illumination  afterward,    is    to   turn    it   all    backward. 
Regeneration,  as  all  Protestants  agree,  is  a  moral  metamorpho- 
sis of  the  lost.   Regeneration,  as  is  equally  agreed,  brings  forth 
faith.     Faith  then,  it  can  only  be  madly  added,  must  prelude 
and  effect  a  moral  change.     And  yet  this  is  the  vagary  of  the 
creeds  !     And  it  is  the  bane  of  orthodoxy.     The  ample  doc- 
trine of  the  word  is  that  what  a  man  must  first  aim  after  is 


344  ROMANS. 

*■'•  lights  He  must  get  it  at  the  cross  of  the  Redeemer.  The 
influx  of  '■'■  lighf  is  regeneration,  and  realizes  every  grace. 
The  sun  shines  upon  the  earth,  and  breeds  all  daylight  colors. 
And  so  *'the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God" 
shines  upon  work,  and  breeds  diligence  ;  shines  upon  sin,  and 
comes  up  repentance  ;  shines  upon  the  lost,  and  takes  the  form 
of  compassion ;  shines  upon  God,  and  in  the  very  vision  of 
Him  is  the  very  substance  of  our  love  ;  shines  upon  Christ, 
and  draws  to  it  all  the  elements  of  confidence  ;  so  that  there 
is  truer  speech  in  saying  that  faith  is  the  effect  of  holiness,  than 
that  holiness  is  the  effect  of  faith,  though  both  are  mistaken 
rhetoric.  Long  before  a  man  has  any  holiness,  he  has  a  cer- 
tain sort  of  faith,  and  there  is  really  the  secret  of  the  error. 
The  faith  that  my  mother  taught  me  has  brought  me  to  the 
mercy-seat,  and,  in  that  far  off  unsaving  way,  is  saving ;  but 
what  all  Protestants  call  "  saving  faith  "  is  nothing  of  the  kind. 
It  is  the  in-breaking  of  the  actual  ''  /ig/it ;  "  and  that  *'  light''  is 
not  only  moral,  as  one  incident  of  its  sort,  but  it  is  in  a  grand 
sense  morality  itself.  It  is  the  waking  of  the  moral  sense  that 
constitutes  regeneration,  and  is  the  saving  change  in  the  faith 
of  the  redeemed. 

12.— Let  us,  therefore,  put  off  the  works  of  darkness,— 

Notice  the  language.  It  is  the  genitive  of  material.  The 
very  "  works  "  are  "  darkness."*  Just  as  all  virtues  trace 
to  "  light,''  because,  as  these  texts  inform  us,  they  really  are 
^^  love"  (13  :  10),  so  all  wickedness  consists  in  darkness.  If 
all  trespass  is  by  a  deficiency  of  *^  love"  (13  :  9;  i  Cor.  13), 
and   all  love  is  but   an  excellence  of  vision  (i  Jo.  3  :  2),  all 

*  fffj^/^j  convey  different  notions,  according  to  our  mood.  "  Works  ^^ 
morally,  or  as  deserving  of  reward,  are  love.  It  is  the  love  in  them  that 
makes  them  moral,  or  the  want  of  love  that  makes  them  wicked.  And  in 
this  view  "  works  of  darkness^'  are  darkness  as  the  only  thing  productive  of 
guilt.  But  "  works''^  physical,  or  the  mechanic  performances  of  the  sinner, 
viewed  externally,  are  \.\i&  fruit  of  ''darkness^'  here  the  genitive  being  the 
genitive  of  efficiency  and  not  of  material,  just  as  we  say  "  works  of  the  law, '^ 
meaning  such  works  as  the  law  by  promises  or  threat  (without  the  Spirit) 
might  occasion  or  engender  (see  com.  3  :  20). 


CHAPTER  XIII.  345 

sin  is  ^^  darkness,''  and  those  become  most  sing^ularly  intended 
texts  which  speak  of  the  "  power  of  darkness  "  (Col.  i  :  13), 
and  which  speak  of  chained  spirits,  not  incarcerated  by  walls, 
but  '*  under  darkness  "(Jude  6),  and,  in  another  place,  as  hav- 
ing "  chains  of  darkness"  (2  Pet.  2  :  4),  showing  that  eternal 
confinement  in  the  Pit  is  effectuated  by  being  blind  (Is.  42  : 
7),  that  being  the  head  condition  of  a  state  of  wickedness. 

Now  Paul  condenses  another  thought  into  the  remaining 
syllables  (v.  12);  "Let  us,  therefore,  put  off  the  works  of 
darkness;"  and  we  might  naturally  suppose  he  would  add, 
"Let  us  put  on  the  (works)  of  light."  But  that  does  not 
suit  him.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  he  enlarges  the  on- 
coming idea.  He  imagines  the  Christian  in  battle.  He  says, 
*•  We  wrestle  not  against  flesh  and  blood  "  (Eph.  6:  12).  What 
would  make  pretty  poor  "  luorks,"  he  sees  will  make  very  toler- 
able "weapons."  And  therefore  he  enlarges  in  the  Ephes- 
ians what  he  merely  glances  at  here,  ^'Let  us  put  off  the  works 
of  darkness,'" — 

12.— And  let  us  put  on  the  weapons  of  light. 

As  though  he  had  said,  "  Works,''  of  course;  but  they  look 
to  me  much  more  like  "  weapons."  When  I  have  called  grace 
by  its  very  highest  name,  and  gone  back  to  the  very  "light" 
of  God  for  its  origin  and  character,  it  seems  almost  a  burlesque 
upon  the  word  to  say  works  of  light.  But  what  are  too  mean 
for  the  name,  in  half-hearted  believers  in  the  cross,  make  dan- 
gerous weapons.  Satan  flies  at  *'  the  light"  that  is  in  the  mean- 
est Christian.  At  any  rate,  these  are  our  meagre  '' weapo?is." 
And  Paul,  in  his  speech  to  Ephesus,  makes  the  most  of  them. 
He  says,  "  Having  done  all  (we  are  to)  stand."  And  he  cata- 
logues our*' armor"  in  a  way  to  bring  out  masterfully  that 
they  are  ''  n'eapons  of  light."  In  the  first  place,  we  have  ''the 
girdle  of  truth;"  that  means  inner  "  truth,"  the  appreciated 
realities  that  are  moral  (Eph.  4:  24;  ''  holiness  of  truth,"  E.  V., 
marg.);  that  **  truth  "  which  God  is  said  to  be  (i  Jo.  5:  6); 
and  it  is  properly  a  "  girdle,"  because  it  holds  all  the  rest,  and 
binds  them  all  together  when  they  hang  upon  the  wall.     Next 


346  ROMANS. 

we  have  the  "  breast-plate,"  which  is  a  man's  personal  "  right- 
eousness," which,  though  a  rent  and  cut  corselet,  is  neverthe- 
less the  best  he  has,  and,  strange  enough,  grows  sounder  and 
stronger  as  he  fights  in  it.  Next,  we  have  the  sandals,  which, 
to  take  the  Greek  literally,  are  "  the  readiness  of  the  peaceful 
gospel."  ''  Over  all  "  (cTrf),  or,  if  we  yield  to  a  new  reading 
{i.v),  "  along  with  all,"  that  is,  to  cover  all  our  own  infirmi- 
ties, "  taking  the  shield  of  faith  ;  "  and  then,  as  the  emblem 
of  ''hope"  (i  Thess.  5  :  8),  ''the  helmet,"  and  then,  as  the 
instrument  of  grace,  "the  word."  It  is  interesting  to  see  how 
all  are  ^^  weapons  of  light,''  and  how  "  the  whole  armor "  is 
gauged  by  "  the  light  "  that  grows  in  the  believer.  They  all 
hang  upon  "the  girdle  of  truth  "  (Matt.  22:  40). 
13.  Let  us  walk  nobly  as  though  by  day;— 

Two  of  Paul's  recent  ideas  (12:  17;  13:  12)  are  here  wedded 
into  one.  Not  only  are  we  to  *'  walk  nobly,"  in  contrast 
with  that  mere  honestness.  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  which  the  Revisers 
ought  certainly  to  have  weeded  out,  but  we  are  to  think  of  it 
as  the  creature  of  ^^  the  light.''  What  cannot  the  lost  be  if  '^  the 
day"  breaks  ?  And  those  night-birds,  where  will  they  be  when 
^^ the  light"  arises?  "Let  us  walk  handsomely  {£vaxviJ^^v(^0 
as  though  by  day,"— 

13.— Not  in  revelling  and  drunkenness,  not  in  cham- 
bering and  wantonness,  not  in  strife  and  envying.  14» 
But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  for  desires  of 
the  flesh  make  ye  no  provision. 

"Put  ye  on."  The  idea  of  armor  comes  back,  but  it  is  now 
broadened.  Things  are  "/«/  on  "  for  either  of  four  purposes, 
to  cover  our  nakedness,  or  to  warm  our  bodies,  or  to  defend 
our  lives,  or  to  ornament  our  persons.  Accordingly,  ^^Fut  ye 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  To  hide  our  nakedness  we  must 
have  His  pardons.  To  warm  our  dead  life  we  must  have  His 
Spirit.  To  fight  our  fight  we  must  have  Him  in  us  and  by  us. 
And  to  ^^walk  handsomely  as  though  by  day"  we  must"//// 
(Him)  on  "  as  our  whole  model  and  strength.  For  if  we  live, 
no  such  living  as  that  is  by  anything  that  we  can  live,  but  by 
Christ  that  liveth  in  us.     And  the  life  that  we  now  live  in  the 


CHAPTER  XII I.  347 

flesh   must  be  by  faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  us  and 
gave  Himself  for  us  (Gal.  2:  20).     Then  follows  the  close.    If 
we  are  to  live  handsomely,  we  are  to  put  Christ  before  us  m 
many  ways.    *'  Make  no  provision."    This  is  like  many  Scrip- 
tures.    ''God  sent  me  not  to  baptize"  (i  Cor.  i:  17);  that  is, 
not  by  contrast  or  in  any  conceivable  comparison.     ''  Take  no 
thought  for  your  life  "  (Matt.  6:  25);  that  is,  by  contrast,  or  as 
a  first  consideration.     "Ye  had    not  had   sin"  (Jo.  15:  22); 
that  is,  no  sin  worthy,  after  that,  of  any  but  half  regard.     In 
the  present  instance,  the  intention  is  more  direct.     "  Make  no 
provisionr     On  the  contrary,  cast  your  life  in  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent way.     He  is  a  happy  mortal  who  no  longer  says,  I  will 
<^make''  this  or  that  ^^ provision''  for  my  daily  necessities;  but. 
From  this  time  forward  I  positively  refuse.     Hereafter,  I  work 
for  God      And  as  I  cannot  bless  Him  in  any  immediate  way, 
my  trade  is,-to  be  useful.     Hereby  I  drive  from  me  every 
different  act  or  care.     And   as,  to  serve  my  Maker,  I  must 
serve   His  creatures,  and  as,  to  serve   His  creatures,  I   must 
maintain  myself,  and  as,  to  maintain  myself,  I   must   pursue 
my  business,  I  will  throw  all  into  that  shape,  anticipating  my 
heavenly  life,  where  I  shall  serve  perpetually  my  fellows,  and 
find  thereby  the  highest  welfare  to  my  being. 

Up6voiav  "for  desires  of  the  flesh,"  seems  a  better  arrange- 
ment of  the  Greek  than  7rp6vomv  ''for  the  flesh  "  {gen),  in  respect 
to  («?)  desiresr     But  the  difference  hardly  matters. 

''Desiresr  Desires  that  are  altogether  innocent  may 
become  desires  altogether  guilty  when  they  are  the  only 
desires  we  have ;  because  they  are  the  exercises  of  the 
human-  soul  that  act  out  and,  each  time,  increase  our  want  of 
better  affections.  "  Flesh  ;  "  all  of  a  man  that  is  not  spiritual. 
The  whole  of  a  creature  outside  of  his  conscience  is  "  the 
flesh  "  in  the  meaning  of  the  apostle.  "  He  that  sows  to  his 
flesh  "  constitutional  and  unliable  to  blame  as  "  the  flesh  may 
be  of  these  constitutional  tastes  -  reaps  corruption  :  "  not 
that  they  themselves  may  be  corrupt,  but  sowing  to  them 
betokens  the  guilt  implied  in  the  want  of  the  pneuma  or  moral 


348  ROMANS. 

*^  desires."     This  closes  a  lengthened  exhortation  beginning 
with  the  twelfth  chapter. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  twelfth  chapter  declared  that  a  man  must  "  think 
soberly  "  (v.  3)  ;  that,  as  far  as  he  allowed  himself  to  judge  of 
his  ministry,  he  must  make  an  estimate  of  it  "  according  to  (its) 
proportion  of  faith''  '■''Faith,''  too,  must  be  judged  by  its 
"  service  "  (v.  7).  And  "  service^"  in  a  most  interesting  way,  is 
accounted  that  which  can  be  accredited  only  as  it  serves. 
Teaching  can  be  of  faith  only  as  it  teaches,  and  exhortation 
only  as  it  exhorts.  Giving  must  be  weighed  only  by  its  sim- 
plicity ;  ruling,  by  its  diligence  ;  the  mercy-shewer,  by  his 
cheerfulness.  So  Paul  starts  his  consideration  of  character. 
He  spends  two  chapters  upon  '^ faith,"  ennobling  it  as  hand- 
some "  in  behavior  (v.  1 7),  and  limiting  it  down  to  an  affection  of 
the  heart  (13  :  8).  He  begins  now  another  fasciculus  with  the 
word  "but."  Do  all  these  things  to  strengthen  your  own 
*' faith,"  but,  all  the  more,  be  tolerant  and  kind  to  those  who 
are  "weak"  believers  : — 

1.  But  him  who  is  weak  in  the  faith  accept,  nor  that, 
either,  to  become  judges  of  his  opinions. 

Notice  the  strange  cunning  of  the  apostolic  procedure.  He 
is  willmg  to  suppose  everything.  His  argument  is  painstak- 
ingly ad  hominem.  He  arrays  himself  on  the  side  of  the  less 
scrupulous  (v.  2),  and  is  willing  to  suppose  that  the  scruples 
he  is  to  consider  sprang  from  weakness  of  faith.  Or  he  will 
yield  to  the  theory  that  it  is  ""weak"  in  another  sense,  viz., 
ignorant,  or  simply  silly.  He  pitches  his  recourse  high  up  in 
the  region  of  the  gospel.  His  first  consideration  is  that  man 
must  "accept,"  because  "God  has  accepted."  The  pre- 
supposition is  that  the  man  has  "faith  ;  "  now  if  it  be  the 
silliest  sort  of  "faith"  so  that  it  boggles  about  "herbs"  and 
slain  meat,  no  matter  ;  if  the  man  has  ''^  faith"  it  is  a  sign  that 
he  has  been  with  the  Redeemer. 

2.  One  man  has  faith  to  eat  everything.  Another,  a  weak 
one,  eats  herbs. 


CHAPTER  XIV.  349 

Paul  decides  that  he  is  not  only  to  be  *'  accepted,''  but  accepted 
not  for  the  purpose  of  criticising  his  opinions  (v.  i). 

3.  Let  not  him  who  eats  despise  him  who  does  not  eat ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  let  not  him  who  does  n"ot  eat  judge 
him  who  eats,  for  God  has  accepted  him. 

'^Received''  (E.  V.  ^  Re.)  is  not  quite  cordial  enough.  The 
word  is  Kpoa?^u(Sdvcj,  literally  to  take  close  to  one  (accipto,  to  **  ac- 
cept"). Let  it  be  noticed  that  ''  doubtful  disputations"  (v.  i,  E. 
V.  &  Re.)  are  quite  wide  of  the   mark   of  <5iaKpictiq  Sca'Aoyiafiuv. 

Paul  proceeds  now  with  a  number  of  considerations  which 
we  will  mention  in  their  order.     First  : — 

4.  Who  art  thou  who  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?— 

Paul  would  be  far  from  the  thought  that  we  are  not  to 
judge.  On  the  contrary,  he  would  agree  with  John  that 
for  certain  dialoyiafioi  we  were  to  wash  our  hands  of  a  man. 
Mere  tolerance  is  one  of  the  last  ideas  of  the  Bible.  "  He 
that  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  receive  him  not  into 
your  house,  neither  bid  him  God-speed  "  (2  Jo.  9,  10).  But 
Paul  is  tired  of  scruples.  What  he  wants  is  the  eternal  dis- 
tinction between  what  is  first  and  what  is  second.  He  has 
already  described  ''faith"  and  shown  that  it  is  to  be  the  ele- 
ment in  all  our  measurements.  "  ///  preaching  "  it  is  to  be  the 
element  ''in  (our)  preaching"  (12  :  6).  We  are  not  to  ask 
what  mistakes  he  made,  or  what  want  of  Demosthenean  power, 
but  what  "faith  "  had  he.  And  that  is  to  be  asked  in  all  our 
services.  And  so  when  he  comes  down  to  the  "  weak,"  it  is 
not  the  question  how  "  weak"  or  what  mistakes  does  he  make 
in  mino-r  principles  or  acts,  but  we  are  to  accredit  the  great 
liberty  of  thought,  and  leave  his  blunders  to  the  care  of  the 
Almighty. 
4.— To  his  own  master  he  stands  or  falls  ;— 
And  yet  Paul  does  not  even  leave  him  to  his  Master.  He 
follows  him  further.  Granting  the  great  principle  of  "faith" 
his  blunders  are  not  to  ruin  him.  "  The  Lord  is  able  to  make 
him  stand ; "  and  "aide"  not  simply  in  the  commoner  sense, 
but  in  the  sense  of  a  previous  passage  (9  :  22),  that  is,  in  con- 


350  ROMANS. 

sistency  with  the  whole  gospel  (i6  :  25).  The  poorest  sim- 
pleton, if  he  have  ^^  faith,''  must  be  "  accepted''  by  the  church, 
'■'■for  God  has  accepted  him.  "Who  art  thou  that  judgest 
another  man's  servant  ?  "  Not  only  to  his  own  master  does 
he  stand  or  fall, 

4.— But  he  shall  bo  made  to  stand  ;  for  the  Lord  is  able  to 
make  him  stand. 

As  a  second  consideration,  along  with  another  picture,  Paul 
brings  out  the  principle  that  though  a  man  may  be  excused  for 
the  weakness  of  his  opinions,  yet  that  he  should  have  a  care  in 
forming  his  opinions,  and  that  this  care  should  be  commensu- 
rate with  his  devotion  to  God.    , 

5 .  One  man  esteems  one  day  above  another ;  another  es- 
teems every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded 
in  his  own  mind. 

Thirdly,  opinions  thus  formed,  though  wrong,  evince  a  bet- 
ter spirit  than  mere  correctness  of  opinion.  This  is  a  prime 
part  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  : — 

6.  He  who  regards  the  day  regards  it  to  the  Lord  ;— 
Suppose  a  man  were  singularly  apt  in  forming  his  opin- 
ions ;  or  suppose  a  man  were  singularly  true  in  carrying  them 
out,  which  would  be  the  higher  character  ?     This  is  a  fine 
stroke.     See  how  piously  the  man  acts  even  in  his  delusion  : — 

6.— And  he  that  eats,  eats  to  the  Lord,  for  he  gives  God 
thanks ;  and  he  that  eats  not,  to  the  Lord  he  eats  not, 
and  gives  God  thanks. 

Paul  would  plainly  imply  that  it  is  better  to  be  an  earnest 
worshiper  even  under  some  secondary  mistake,  than  at  all  in 
the  least  degree  less  earnest  in  a  perfect  ritual. 

7.  For  he  goes  on  to  say,  and  this  is  a  fourth  point,  "No 
one  lives  to  himself.'*  Not  only  is  it  a  high  excellence  in  a 
man  to  be  devoted  even  under  some  mistakes,  but  Paul  brings 
it  into  view  that  it  is  the  whole  of  piety.  Forming  a  shrewd 
opinion  is  wise,  but  carrying  it  out  is  heavenly: — 

7.  For  no  man  lives  to  himself,  and  no  man  dies  to 
himself.    8.  For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord, 


CHAPTER  XIV.  351 

and  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord ;  whether  we 
live,  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's. 

Abraham  knew  little  of  Christ,  but  Abraham  was  earnest. 
Peter  had  grossly  wrong  opinions  (Matt.  16:  22^")^  and  about 
much  more  serious  matters  than  eating  herbs.  Exquisite 
Christians  are  lunatics  about  half  the  faith. 

But  Paul,  with  wonderful  condensation,  brings  out  a  fifth 
point.  Not  only  is  living  to  (}od  the  great  end  of  the  believer, 
and,  therefore,  of  unspeakable  importance  above  the  secondary 
half  of  his  creed,  but  to  help  him  to  do  so  was  the  great  end 
of  the  Redeemer. 

9.  For  to  this  very  end  Christ  died  and  lived,  that  He 
might  become  Lord  of  both  dead  and  living. 

10.  Sixth,  Paul  shames  the  Christian,  because  he  himself  is 
to  be  the  victim  of  the  most  scathing  judgment. 

10.  But  thou,  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  Or 
especially  thou,  why  dost  thou  despise  thy  brother  ?  For 
we  are  all  to  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  1 1 . 
For  it  is  written: 

As  I  live,  says  the  Lord,  to  me  every  knee  shall  bow. 
And  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God. 

Why  judge  a  "brother*'  about  trifles,  when  we  ourselves 
are  to  be  humiliated  at  the  last  about  much  graver  wicked- 
nesses ? 

12.  So  then,  each  one  of  us  is  to  give  account  of  himself 
to  God. 

This  grandest  apostle  is  the  albatross  of  the  Scripture  dia- 
lectic. His  wing  is  ceaseless.  We  dash  without  a  break  into 
his  seventh  appeal.  Beware  of  your  own  personal  act  !  Eating 
and  drinking  is  a  trifle,  but  violating  conscience  is  a  terrible 
iniquity.  Mark  how  he  builds  deep  and  solid.  "  I  know  and 
am  persuaded."  Eating  may  be  in  doubt,  but  the  fact  I  now 
mention  is  beyond  a  cavil.  ''I  know  and  am  persuaded,''  and, 
therefore,  I  of  all  others  might  cheer  you  on  in  laughing  at 
these  simpleton  believers.  It  may  be  foolish  to  scruple,  but  it 
is  infinitely  more  foolish  not  to  hesitate.     "-I  know  and  am  per- 


352  ROMANS. 

suaded  that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself,  but  (and 
here  is  a  principle  that  sweeps  over  six  verses,  13-18)  to  him 
who  thinks  anything  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean."  Paul 
seizes  deftly  all  the  threads  of  thought.  Not  only  are  you 
tempting  another,  but  you  are  sinning  awfully  yourself: — 

13.  Let  us,  therefore,  no  more  judge  each  other,  but  do 
ye  judge  this  rather,  not  to  place  a  stumbling  block  or  a 
trap  in  a  brother's  way.  14.  I  know  and  am  persuaded  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself;  but 
to  him  who  thinks  anything  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean. 
15.  For  if  thy  brother  is  grieved  on  account  of  meat,  thou 
walkest  no  longer  lovingly. 

Paul  is  edging  up  closer.  Thus  far,  he  has  been  talking  of 
judging.  Now  he  is  plunging  deeper  in  his  reasoning.  Con- 
science is  so  much  nobler  than  meats  that  he  is  about  to  enjoin 
upon  the  *'  strong  "  that  they  actually  "  bear  the  i7ifirmities  of 
the  weak''  (15:  i).     See  how  he  advances  his  redoubts: — 

15. —Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat  for  whom  Christ 
died. 

He  is  actually  meddling  with  my  meat  ! 

"Become  Lord"  (v.  9).  This  corresponds  with  the  eighth 
verse,  where  Paul  gives  it  as  the  great  end  of  life  to  be  "  the 
Lord's."  Of  course  Christ's  great  end  (man-ward)  is  to  make 
us  "/^^  Lord's''  (v.  9).  If,  as  the  conceded  point.  He  has 
made  the  ''weak  brother"  His,  then  "  Destroy  not  him  with 
thy  meat  for  whom  Christ  died." 

Having  such  weak  people  in  charge,  it  is  strangely  necessary 
that  we  do  not  injure  them.  Meats  are  unimportant,  but  a 
wounded  conscience  is  a  terrible  mishap.  "Let  us,  there- 
fore, no  longer  judge  each  other,  but  judge  ye  this  rather, 
not  to  place  a  stumbling  block  or  a  trap  in  a  brother's  way  '* 

(v.  13)- 

• "/  know  and  am  persuaded"  (v.  14).  See  how  much  stronger 
this  makes  it !  Paul  settles  the  question,  for  he  adds,  "  in  the 
Lord  Jesus."  And  yet,  though  he  knows  that  the  doubters 
are  all  wrong,  and  knows  that  they  will  wickedly  resist  this  ap- 
peal to  inspiration,  yet  he  takes  the  extreme  ground  that  we 


CHAPTER  XIV.  353 

are  to  go  over  to  them  f  The  passage  is  a  very  striking  one  ;  but 
before  we  inspect  it  all,  let  us  complete  with  care  some 
other  expositions. 

"Unclean"  (v.  14,  E.  V.  &  Re.),  because  common  (which  is 
the  real  word)  meant  that  in  the  Jewish  habit  of  speech  (Acts 
10:  28). 

"Lovingly."  The  terms  are  precise.  They  mean  ''accord- 
ing to  love."  Paul  aims  to  be  exhaustive.  He  has  said  in 
one  chapter  that  we  ''owe''  nothing  but  "  loi'e  "  (13:  8).  Meat 
is  a  trifle.  "  Neither  if  we  eat  are  we  the  better  ;  neither  if  we 
eat  not  are  we  the  worse"  (i  Cor.  8:  8).  It  may  cause  us 
great  personal  inconvenience  to  do  without  a  dish.  Moreover 
the  troublesome  saint  is  confessedly  silly,  and  Paul,  "  knows  "  it 
that  way,  and  knows  it  by  inspiration,  or,  in  other  words,  "  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  \''  and  yet  as  a  splendid  decision,  which  has 
lived  all  these  centuries  in  the  church,  the  weak  are  to  govern 
the  strong,  and  that  for  grand  considerations,  which  are  the 
genuine  out-beaming  of  the  Gospel. 

Paul  takes  the  ground  that  we  are  to  be  governed  by  'Uove  " 
(13:  9).  The  very  world,  we  everywhere  find,  was  begotten 
by  "/^z'^"  (Prov.  8:  22-30).  We  have  no  obligation  to  men 
but  the  obligation  of  ''love''  (13:  8,  10).  We  have  a  lot  of 
weak  communicants.  Their  comfortable  conscience  is  more 
important  than  our  eating  meat.  To  seduce  them  against 
their  principle  m-diy '' destroy"  them  forever.  That  is  all  of 
it.  And  there  emerges  Paul's  verdict  to  Corinth,  which 
has  been  so  often  quoted,  "  If  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend, 
I  will  eat  no  flesh  while  the  world  standeth  "  (i  Cor.  8:  13). 

We  need  hardly  explain  the  sentence  "for  whom  Christ 
died"  (v.  15).  If  "  Christ  died"  for  a  man,  surely  we  can  go 
without  meat  for  him  ;  particularly  if  there  be  the  slenderest 
danger  that  we  tempt  and  "destroy"  him. 

16.  Paul  advances  now  to  the  eighth  consideration.  If  a 
man  is  a  Christian,  "the  good"  in  him  is  exceedingly  pre- 
cious. He  may  be  a  very  '*  weak  "  Christian,  yet  if  his  weakness 
consists  in  scruples,  and  his  scruples  are  felt  and  pressed  out 


354  ROMANS. 

of  love  to  the  Master,  we  are  to  be  careful  !  Bringing  out  into 
bold  relief  his  weaknesses  will  hide  his  better  qualities,  and,  in 
fact,  show  scruples  in  us;  for  it  will  show  that  we  are  not  moved 
by  the  grander  traits,  but  stick,  ourselves,  in  the  small  partic- 
ulars.    This  is  plainly  the  apostle's  meaning: — 

16.  Let  not  your  good,  therefore,  be  evil  spoken  of. 

"Your  good.**  Paul  had  been  using  before  the  second 
person  singular.  He  now  changes  to  the  plural.  "  Your  good** 
is  now  the  good  of  the  whole  body.  Uo  not  speak  evil  of  the 
^^weak*'  for  they  are  part  of  you  ;  and  don't  reflect  upon  your- 
selves ;  for  "men"  (v.  i8)  will  side  with  the  "«^^^>^,"  and 
** approve"  the  man  who  longs  to  do  his  duty,  above  the  man 
who  laughs  at  him  for  scruples  about  food  or  holidays. 

^^ Accept**  him,  the  word  had  been  (v.  i),  and  there  had  imme- 
diately been  imposed  the  caution,  *'  not  with  criticisjus  of  his 
opinio7is  "  (v.  i).  If  he  is  a  Christian  (and  do  not  "  accept  "  him 
unless  he  is),  then  he  loves  Christ,  and  what  is  butcher's  meat 
in  contrast  with  affection  ?  That  is  the  point  which  the  next 
sentence  presses: — 

17.  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but 
righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  a  Holy  Spirit. 

1 8.  The  very  scruples  of  a  man  may  be  warmed  by  these 
principles  of  life  ;  and  if  they  are,  "men"  will  show  respect — 
to  say  nothing  of  the  Almighty.  In  fact,  this  is  everything  that 
can  deserve  respect.  The  only  question  is,  Is  he  a  possessor 
of  even  the  feeblest  affection  ? 

18.  For  he  that  in  this  serves  Christ,  is  acceptable  to  God 
and  approved  of  men. 

We  were  strongly  tempted  to  the  idea  thati>/zwv  (v.  i6)  might 
be  connected  with  32.ao<t>7/iueia6o),  and  might  be  one  of  those  rare 
cases  of  a  causal  genitive  (see  Goodwin,  Gram.);  bringing  out 
the  meaning,  '^Let  not  the  good**  (viz.,  of  these  weak-minded 
believers)  be  evil  spoken  of  by  you**  But  though  poetry  is  full 
of  such  causal  constructions,  prose  is  not;  and  though  Paul  in 
any  one  of  these  aphoristic  sentences  may  be  quoting  poetry, 


CHAPTER  XIV.  355 

yet  we  could  rarely  know  it  ;  and  unquestionably  the  other 
connection  of  the  pronoun  is  the  more  usual,  and  has  the 
higher  right. 

"In  this"  (v.  1 8)  is  the  more  authoritative  reading,  and  is 
a  neuter  expression,  including  the  whole  state  of  spirit  (v.  17). 
*'  Holy  Spirit "  (v.  17)  is  without  the  article,  and  to  translate  it 
so  should  offend  no  creed,  for  all  translators  sometimes  translate 
that  way,  we  mean  when  the  article  is  missing  (Matt.  22:  43,  E. 
v.,  see  Re.;  Acts  19:  2,  E.  V.,see  Re.;  see  also  Revisers  in  i 
Cor.  2:  12,  and  Rev.  11:  11),  and  do  not  consider  themselves  as 
thereby  altering  the  fact  that  when  it  is  not  missing,  it  may 
express  directly  a  living  "  Deity  "  (Acts  13:  2;  2  (Jor.  3:  17). 
*'The  Kingdom  of  God'*  (v.  17)  is  undoubtedly  all  the  uni- 
verse. Our  bodies  belong  to  it  ;  but  in  the  way  of  eminence 
only  our  intelligent  being.  But  the  apostle  goes  a  vast  deal 
further,  and  borrowing  his  idea  from  the  Redeemer,  means 
^'  The  Kingdom  of  God  (that)  is  within  you  "  (Lu.  17:  21).  He 
gives  to  it,  in  the  way  of  supreme  honor,  our  moral  part.  God 
wields  immense  potency  in  rolling  the  stars,  but  Paul  ascribes 
higher  power  to  His  moral  Kingdom.  Conscience  is  its  centre. 
And  to  restore  a  conscience,  is  a  higher  act  than  to  upbuild 
matter  to  its  very  rim.  "  What  the  exceeding  greatness  of  His 
power?"  is  the  problem  which  is  to  task  eternity  ;  and  Paul 
turns  its  grandest  edge  and  compass  to  the  thought  that  it  is 
a  '*  power  to  us-ward  who  believe  "  (Eph.  i :  19). 

19.  Paul's  ninth  consideration  is,  that  picking  at  these  lesser 
points  destroys  the  whole  enterprise  of  salvation: — 

19.  Let  us,  therefore,  press  forward  toward  the  things  of 
peace  and  of  edification  each  for  the  other. 

"Press  forward."  The  verb  is  a  strong  one.  "Each  for 
the  other."  This  belongs  both  to  the  "peace"  and  to  the 
"  edification."  "  Things  whereby  we  may  edify  one  another  " 
(E.  V.  cSz:  Re.)  is  a  translation  that  does  not  recognize  this. 
The  ''peace  "  like  the  edifyino;  must  be  pressed-after,  "  each  for 
the  other."  I  must  have  ''peace  "  with  him,  and  I  must  see  to 
it  that  he  has  "peace  "  with  me. 


356  ROMANS. 

20.  For  meat  throw  not  down  the  work  of  God.— 

"Throw  not  down,"  as  opposed  to  edifying  (v.  19).  The 
Greek  \'s>  KaTa\vu,y\o\.k'KoKKvt{y.\^,'' destroy,''  E.  V.).  And  so, 
very  naturally,  the  apostle  adds: — 

20.— All  things  may  indeed  be  clean,  but  it  is  an  evil 
thing  for  a  man  to  eat  so  as  to  occasion  stumbling. 

'■''Peace''  and  upbuilding  (v.  19)  are  higher  things  than 
eating  "meat."  The  ""meat"  may  be  innocent,  but  not  the 
act  of  eating  it.  It  cannot  be  my  duty  to  eat  meat,  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  may  be  my  duty  to  remove  a  stumbling  block. 
"  For  meat  throw  not  down  the  work  of  God.  All  things 
may  indeed  be  clean,  but  it  is  an  evil  thing  for  a  man  to  eat 
so  as  to  occasion  stumbling." 

21.  And  then  the  obverse  idea  ! — 

21.  It  is  a  noble  thing  not  to  eat  flesh  or  to  drink  wine  or 
to  do  anything  whereby  thy  brother  stumbles. 

"  Or  is  offended  or  is  fnade  iveak  "  (E.  V.)  has  the  authority 
against  it  (see  MSS.),  but  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  it  is 
not  a  true  reading. 

22.  It  is  like  Paul  to  keep  his  strongest  considerations  to  the 
last.  Like  Christ,  if  that  story  is  true  of  Him  (see  the  MSS.), 
calling  upon  certain  accusers  to  throw  the  first  stone  if  they 
are  innocent  (Jo.  8  :  7),  he  quietly  raises  the  question,  as  his 
tenth  point,  whether  these  *'  strong  "  believers  (!)  have  not  pe- 
culiarities of  faith  which  they  themselves  are  not  following. 
His  mode  of  intimating  this  is  of  the  most  delicate  possible. 
"  Happy  is  the  man !  "  He  is  a  creature  of  rare  felicity  who 
does  not  often  believe  one  thing  and  do  another. 

22.  The  faith  which  thou  holdest,  hold  in  accordance 
with  thy  self  before  God. 

That  is,  Thou  scornest  this  stickling  in  meat,  and  "  holdest  " 
a  "faith"  proudly  above  this  mob  of  weak  believers.  But 
have  a  care  !  Thine  own  very  "self ;"  how  does  it  hold  in 
all  its  deep  convictions  in  the  respect  of  this  alleged  believing  ? 
Art  thou   always  doing  that  which  thine  innermost    ^^self" 


CHAPTER  XIV.  357 

believes  that  thou   oughtest  to  do,  and  that,  cvwt/ov  roi)  e^oi, /'// 
Goirs  sight,   or,  what  is   an    equivalent   expression,   '*  before 
God"  (Lu.  I  :  6,  15)  ? 
I  trow  not  : — 

22.— Happy  is  he  who  judges  not  himself  in  that  which 
he  approves. 

23.  All  unconscientiousness  Paul  says  "  is  sin."  All  men 
he  seems  to  suspect  are  unconscientious.  He  evidently  im- 
plies that  it  should  make  us  modest  in  judging.  "But  "  (rft) ; 
and  this  word  answers  to  Paul's  doubting  over  what  he  holds  ; 
not  only  are  convictions  to  be  hearkened  to,  "  but  "  doubts  are 
supreme  in  their  place  : — 

23.  But  he  that  doubts  is  condemned  if  he  eat,  because  it 
is  not  of  faith  ;  and  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin. 

"Thefaith  which  (/>')  thou  boldest"  (v.  22).  This  read- 
ing has  all  the  authority.  But  whether  it  has  or  not  ;  or 
whether  we  read  interrogatively  (E.  V.),  or  in  any  of  the  dif- 
ferent ways,  makes  not  the  smallest  difference.  It  is  well  to 
say  ^'  holdest "  (^vte'c),  and  not  ''hast  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  for  *'  ho/d- 
^.y/ "'is  more  artificial  than '^  hast,"  and  answers  better  to  the 
idea  of  seeming  or  supposing  oneself  to  ho/d.  "In  accordance 
with  thyself."  This  is  the  proper  force  of  naTd.  "  The  Gos- 
pel accordi)tg  to  John"  means  the  gospel  "  in  accordance  with  " 
his  remembrances  of  it.  "  According  to  himself"  or  '*  according 
to  itself"  in  the  Bible  is  translated  very  wrongfully  '^  alone** 
or  "  by  himself"  and  we  hide  thereby  most  important  signifi- 
cance. Even  Paul  (though  the  other  is  admissible)  might 
have  been  better  said  to  dwell  ^^  according  to  hitnself"  when 
the  others  went  to  jail  (Acts  28  :  16),  rather  than  *'  by  himself" 
(E.  V.  &  Re.),  KaB  eavTuv  meaning  "  to  himself"  or  *'  at  his  own 
will"  or  "  disposal"  the  limitation  being  that  it  was  "  with  a 
soldier  that  kept  him."  This  criticism,  however,  becomes 
imminent  when  the  apostle  James  is  looked  into.  When  he 
says,  "  Is  dead  according  to  its  very  self  "  (2  :  17),  it  is  ruin  to 
translate  him,  "  Is  dead  being  alone  "  (E.  V.).  The  Revisers 
also  damage  him  by  saying  (and  this  with   unspeakably   less 


358  ROMANS. 

warrant)  •*  is  dead  in  itself  "  (Re.).  The  book  is  afterward  \.q 
say,  "  And  not  by  faith  only'*  {ixdvov,  v.  24).  The  apostle  is  at- 
tempting to  argue  (what  is  the  very  strongest  of  all  assevera- 
tions), that  faith,  being  the  most  pregnant  of  all  gifts,  and  being, 
according  to  that  other  apostle,  the  very  "  substance  of  things 
hoped  for  "  (Heb.  11  :  i);  that  is,  in  its  needful  differentia,  if  it 
be  saving,  being  the  very  light  of  holiness  itself,  is  *'  dead''  if 
it  is  not  holy.  And  whether  ours  be  saving  faith  or  common, 
its  dicta  in  either  case  rebuke  a  counterfeit,  so  that  in  either 
case,  "  if  it  have  not  works  it  is  dead  according  to  its  very 
self  "  (Jas.  2:17;  see  Excursus  ad  fin?). 

The  bearing  is  evident.  Paul  insists  that  our  faith,  if  we 
pretend  it,  shall  be  "  /;/  accordance  with  "  ourselves.  We  shall 
not  believe  one  way,  and  behave  another.  Nay,  that  our  out- 
giving shall  fit  the  body  of  ourselves.  And  he  makes  it  all 
more  solemn  when  he  says  ivu-iov  rov  Oeov,  that  is,  when  he  lets 
in  upon  the  question  of  our  obedience,  the  fact  that  we  are 
under  the  eye  of  the  Almighty. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Eleventh: — 

1.  But  we  who  are  able,  are  bound  to  bear  the  weak- 
nesses of  those  who  are  unable,  and  not  to  please  our- 
selves. 

"But"  is  the  appropriate  particle.  You  have  scruples  of 
your  own,  but  in  this  question  of  meat,  you  are  "able  "  to  act 
with  freedom.  Your  brother  is  "  unable."  The  point  is  well 
taken.  We  lose  it  entirely  if  we  translate  "  strong  "  and  "  weak  " 
(E.  V.  &  Re.).  The  elenchtic  triumph  depends  upon  the  idea 
of  dvvafiai.  You  may  have  your  own  weaknesses  and  scruples, 
"  l^2/t,"  in  this  matter,  you  are  ''able''  to  make  a  concession, 
and  your  weak  brother  is  "  imable."  That  makes  all  the  differ- 
ence. The  same  adjectives  have  been  noticed  elsewhere.  We 
hear  of  "-what  the  law  could  not  do"  (8:  3,  hdvvaTov),  because  it 
was  morally  ''unable."  We  hear  of  what  God  could  do  (9:  22) 
for  the  obverse  reason.     Paul  had  pressed  the  idea  that  what 


CHAPTER  XV.  359 

a  man  thought,  he  must  follow  (14:  14);  now,  if  the  sticklers 
at  Rome  thought  that  they  must  live  upon  herbs,  so  it  must  be. 
And  he  brings  out  the  splendid  law  that  we  must  sacrifice  our- 
selves to  the  advantage  of  others.  They  were  "■  unabW  to  eat 
certain  things  and  be  innocent,  we  are  perfectly  '^ able''  not  to 
eat  without  moral  surrender.  It  is  on  this  high  ground  that 
we  are  to  expound  the  apostle  :  and  we  arrive  at  the  sense  by 
noticing  these  fresh  words  which  are  introduced  into  the  pas- 
sage. "We  who  are  able;"  that  is,  whose  consciences  are 
perfectly  uninvolved.  "Are  bound;"  the  word  is  stronger 
than  '^ ought''  {^.N .  &  Re.),  and  binds  absolute  duty.  "To 
bear;"  that  is,  to  lift  up  or  carty.  '' llu'  who  are  able,"  and 
have  no  conscientious  obligation  to  live  upon  meat,  ought  to 
shoulder  the  burdens  of  those  who  are  "  unable  "  to  touch  it, 
even  though  the  burden  be  a  weakness  (aff0/v///za) ;  the  apostle 
returns  to  the  original  expression  (14:  i\  And  we  are  to  bear 
each  other's  "weaknesses"  on  a  principle  which  the  apostle 
follows  in  the  second  verse,  and  which  he  immediately  robs  of 
all  possibility  of  extravagance. 

2.  Paul  would  be  far  from  saying  that  we  are  "  not  to  please 
ourselves."  If  a  man  should  wear  a  cut-off  coat,  or  keep  his 
hat  on  before  a  king,  Paul  would  be  the  last  man  to  do  the 
same,  simply  to  "please  his  neighbor."  Paul  speaks  senten- 
tiously,  but  with  wonderful  precision  he  strikes  the  idea  again, 
and  this  time  makes  it  complete: — 

2.  Let  each  one  of  us  please  his  neighbor  for  that  which 
is  good  to  edifying. 

A  man  boggles  at  meat.  Merely  to  ''please  "  him  I  am  not  to 
eat  herbs.  But  the  passage  puts  a  whole  case  together. 
First,  the  meat  is  innocent  (14:  14);  second,  the  man  does  not 
think  so  (ib.);  third,  he  is  '*  unable  "  to  touch  it  (ib.  and  v.  23); 
fourth,  we  are  ''able"  not  to  touch  it,  and  be  absolutely  guilt- 
less (v.  i);  fifth,  simply  to  please  him  I  would  make  no  such 
submission.  But  Paul  makes  out  the  entire  case.  If  I  can 
innocently  "//^^.f^  "  him,  and  thereby  do  him  "  good,"  and 
thence,  not  as  an  occasional,  but,  as  Paul  beautifully  implies, 


36o  ROMANS. 

an  invariable  consequence,  edify  and  make  him  better,  then  I 
am  ^^ bound"  for  the  sacrifice.  We  are  left  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion of  detail.  A  man  may  rebel  against  any  particular  demand. 
But  Paul  leaves  us  upon  the  high  groyind  of  ^^ good."  Once 
settle  that  the  sacrifice  of  flesh  will  edify  my  neighbor,  and 
the  point  is  gained.  "  //  is  noble  neither  to  eat  flesh  or  to  drink 
wine,  or  to  do  anything  whereby  thy  brother  stumbles  "  (14  :  21). 
3.  Our  translators  were  wrong  in  saying  ''  even  Christ " 
(E.  V.)  ;  and  expositors  have  fallen  into  the  snare,  and  made 
Paul  emphasize  self-sacrifice  by  saying,  ''Even  Christ"  sub- 
mitted to  it  !  What  would  Christ  be  without  such  sacri- 
fices ?  The  Revisers  are  aware  of  the  mistake,  and  say,  "  For 
Christ  also."  This  might  seem  near  enough.  But  the  expres- 
sion is  «a^  yap,  and  the  usage  of  Paul  makes  that  merely  sig- 
nificant of  an  additional  argument  (2  Cor.  3  :  10  ;  13:4;  Phil. 
2  :  27  ;  I  Thess.  3:4).  The  meaning  is  not  ''  Christ  also^'* 
but  ''for  also"t\\Q  Kai  simply  informing  us  that  now  we  are  to 
have  an  additional  confirmation.  Not  only  does  it  stand  to 
reason  that  to  do  a  neighbor  ^' good"  is  better  than  to  eat  meat 
(i  Cor.  8  :  13),  but,  says  Paul,  there  comes  in  still  another  rea- 
son.    There  is  the  example  of  "  Ch?'ist." 

3.  For,  furthermore,  Christ  pleased  not  Himself;  but,  as 
it  is  written,  The  reproaches  of  them  who  reproach  Thee 
fell  on  me. 

We  are  not  to  rest  contented  with  this  bare  text  from  the 
sixty-ninth  Psalm,  for  Paul  has  a  way  of  quoting  a  text  as  a 
sort  of  taste  and  indication  of  all  its  context  (4  :  18  ;  7  :  7). 
Perhaps  this  is  a  reason  why  we  should  welcome  navra,  if  it  only 
had  a  little  better  authority,  in  the  text  that  follows.  We  must 
exclude  it,  but  we  will  show  it  in  its  place  in  brackets  : — 

4.  For  whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were 
(all)  written  for  our  learning,— 

The ''<7//,"  even  in  this  single  lyric,  would  include  very 
remarkable  things.  If  Paul  meant  to  refer  to  the  whole 
Psalm,  as  we  think  he  did,  it  shows  the  instance  of  instances 
of  the  keenest  self-infiicted  sorrow.     It  is  a  Psalm  which  has 


CHAPTER  XV.  361 

helped  that  hybrid  notion  of  what  it  is  to  be  Messianic,  which 
has  imagined  that  one   of   the  songs  of    David  may    speak    of 
himself  in  one  part  of  it,  and  of  Christ  in  another.     No  sen- 
tence could  have  suggested    this  except  only  the  fifth  verse. 
The  first  verse,  *'  Save  me,  O  God  ;  for  the  waters  are  come 
in  unto  my  soul  ;  "  and  the  ninth,  "  For  the  zeal  of  thine  house 
hath  eaten  me    up  ;"  and   the  twenty-first,  about  the  "  gall," 
and  "  vinegar,"  could   hardly  be   denied  as    Messianic   utter- 
ances.    But  one  wonderful  sentence  has  ruined  everything  :— 
^'  O  God,  thou  knowest  my  foolishness,  and  my  sins  are  not  hid 
from  thee  "(v.   5).     That  confession  of   sin    has  backed  men 
squarely  out  from  even  a  dream  that  the  whole  Psalm  belongs 
to  the   Redeemer.     But  instead  of  disturbing  anything,  it  is 
really  the  crown  text  of  the  Psalm.     How  often  a  verse  is  tram- 
pled and  kept  in  a  condition  of  waste  by  a  single  misprision  in 
the  rendering  !     The  Psalmist  is  really  reaching  the  very  con- 
ception of  the  apostle.     Our  whole  distress  comes  from  a  lin- 
guistic neglect.     There  has  been  the  neglect  of  a  particle  (i?). 
Let  me  translate  all  as  it  stands  :— "  Oh  God,  thou  knowest 
as  to  ^)  my  sin  (foolishness  E.  V.),"  that  is,  that  I  have  none. 
The  unriddling  of  all  comes  immediately  :— ''  For  for  thy  sake  I 
have  borne  reproach  "  (v.  7);  what  has  distressed  us  as  a  con- 
fession, is  positively  a  splendid  innocence.     It  is  hard  that  that 
grand  IdmeJh  (^)  should  have  been  thus  for  centuries  over- 
looked.  TheEnglish  version  has  disposed  of  the  other  clause  ; 
for  it  has  corrected  it  in  the  margin.     "  O  God  thou  knowest 
as  to  my  sin,  and  my  guiltinesses  "  (vicarious  or  inherited)  "  are 
not  hid  from  thee."     Let  not  my  shame  shame  others  (v.   6)  ; 
"  because,  for  thy  sake  I  have  borne   reproach  "  (v.  7).     And 
then  instantly  the  quotation  of  Paul,  "  For  the  zeal  of  thine 
house  has  eaten  me  up,  and  the  reproaches  of  them  that  re- 
proached thee  have  fallen  upon  me." 

Paul  has  so  much  in  his  sentences  that  it  is  hard  to  notice 
everything.  But  we  must  not  miss  the  fact  that  he  does  not 
%2.y'^^  for  his  goodto  edifymg''  {Y..  V.,  v.  2),  but  '^  for  goodr 
We  soon  return  upon  the  idea  that  pleasing  one's  neighbor 
does  as  much  good  to  one's  self  as  to  the  neighbor  whose 


262  ROMANS. 

scruples  we  would  spare.  Paul  does  not  forget  this.  He 
quotes  our  glorious  Example,  and  then  implies  that  tolerating 
others  is  most  of  all  effective  in  '■^edifying  "  ourselves.  "  For 
whatsoever  things  were  writtefi  aforetime  were  written  for  our 
learning^'' — 

4.— That  we  through  the  patience  and  through  the  en- 
couragement of  the  Scriptures  might  have  the  hope. 

Nor  is  it  at  all  to  be  forgotten  that  "the patience"  and 
"the  encouragement"  and,  even,  "the  hope,"  so  marked 
with  the  definite  article,  are  all  in  "  Scripture."  "  Through 
the  patience  and  through  the  encouragement  of  the  Script- 
ures might  have  the  hope  "  (of  the  Scriptures).  Paul  pursues 
his  listeners  with  their  own  writings.  And  intending  to  press 
upon  the  Jews  their  national  ^^edification  "  in  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  Gentiles,  he  steals  up  to  it  by  gentle  conciliation, 
always  pushing  forward  into  the  front  the  words  of  their  own 
law  which  they  idolatrously  reverenced. 

5.  But  may  the  God  of  the  patience  and  of  the  encourage- 
ment give  unto  you  to  think  the  same  thing  as  among  one 
another,  in  agreement  with  Christ  Jesus. 

Here  is  the  connection  with  what  is  behind  (v.  4).  If  we  want 
'^ the  hope"  revealed  in  ^^  the  Scriptures,''  we  must  have  ^^  the 
patience  and  the  encouragetJient  that  is  in  the  Scriptures.''  We  are 
taught  these  by  the  example  of  Christ.  Nevertheless  they  must 
be  given  to  us  by  "  God."  And  we  must  not  be  deaf  to  the 
eloquence  with  which  Paul  doubles  upon  his  idea.  Not  only  is 
the  God  he  appeals  to,  "the^God  of  the  patience  and  of  the 
encouragement,"  who  must  needfully  "give"  them  to  us,  but 
he  entreats  further.  He  overtures  the  saints  to  agree  better 
than  they  did,  and  especially  on  the  point  he  is  about  to  broach 
to  them  (v.  8).  He  wishes  them  "to  think  (more)  the  same 
thing  among  (themselves),"  as  he  beautifully  expresses  it 
"  in  agreement  with  Christ  Jesus."  If  they  really  cared, 
they  could  get  to  that  state  in  essential  matters.  And  we  are 
to  notice  in  the  next  verse  that  this  would  really  be  to  "  glo- 
rify God."     Each  syllable  tells.     If  "  the  glory  of  God  "  (v. 


CHAPTER  XV.  363 

7^  (and  by  that  we  are  to  mean  moral " ^/i>0',"  6  ;  4  ;  2  Cor 
,  18  •  2  Pet  I  ■  3),  shines  out  in  the  example  of  Christ,  and 
we  cry  to  God  to  be  affiliated  to  that  example,  then  each  fila- 
ment of  these  texts  becomes  distinct  ;-May  the  God  of  the 
patience  and  the  encouragement  give  unto  you  to  thmk  the 
same  thing  as  among  one  another,   in  agreement  with  Chnst 

Jesus  : — 
6 .    That  with  like  mind,  in  one  mouth,— 

(  \nd  let  It  be  understood,  this  is  "  like  "  to  Christ  and  "  in 
one  mouth"  with  Christ  as  well  as  with  His  people  ;  for  so 
the  close  suggests  to  us  :  for  we  thereby  shine  out  with  the 
same  "glory"  that  He  does;  for  mark  exactly  the  expres- 
sions :— "  that  with  like  mind,  in  one  mouth,"—) 

e.-Ye  may  glorify  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

"Encouragement"  (vs.  4,  5)-     This  is  a  most  unmanage- 
able  Greek.     Probably  every  expositor  has  tussled  with  the 
task  of  some  one  English  to  translate  it.     It  really   means  to 
call  to  ones  side.     It  means,  therefore,  to  advocate  (i  Jo.  i  :   i), 
because  our  defender  calls  us  to  his  side.     It  might  mean  to 
ishtfor  us      It  certainly  means  to  call  on  (Matt.  26:53).     It 
meansto.^/..r/(Actsi5:32),andto.;./r.«/(Matt.  18:  32),  and 
Xo  console^2Qox.  i:  6),  and  to  .;/r^«r^^^  (see  Robinson  and  L.d- 
dell)   because  all  these  words  have  a  covert  thought  of  calling 
in   or  summoning  the  person  near.    We  have  often  looked  nar- 
rowly  at  the  word  help,  as  for  example  in  the  text  -  I  shall  give 
you  another  helper"  (Jo.  14  :   16)  ;  but  like  a  brook  with  the 
banks  thrown  down,  it  would  flow  at  onceover  too  wide  a  sur- 
face     We  have  to  leave  it  to   its  fate   of  being  par  excellence 
the  much    translated  New  Testament  expression.     But   here 
undoubtedly   it    ties  itself  to   the    expression   of   -edifying 
''  Edifyin^^  "  is  no  random  or  on-a-sudden  '^ good''  (v.  2).     It 
requires   ''/^//W/^^',"    and     -  patience^     is    hopeless    without 
rrapd^AvcT^c.    Military  men  might  call  it  -  aid  and  comfort.      Faul 
tracks    it   to  "  the  Scriptures  "  (v.  4),  and    teaches  that    "  the 
hope  "  there  taught  is  not  to  be  had  without  these  other  things. 


364  ROMANS. 

He  tracks  them  above  all  to  God  (v.  5).  He  tracks  them 
as  having  been  given  to  Christ  (v.  6).  And  he  begs  that  ^^  the 
God  of  the  patience  and  the  e?icouragement  ?nay  give  them  also  to 
us,  or,  as  a  means  to  that  end,  may  grant  that,  being  of  '^  like 
mind''  with  one  another,  and  with  His  Son,  we  "  may  gloj'ify 
the  God  and  Father  "  of  our  blessed  Redeemer.  These  are 
very  pregnant  sentences. 

7.  And  he  brings  the  whole  series  now  to  bear  on  the  great 
Gentile  prejudice  (Eph.  2:  14).  "Wherefore  accept  each 
other ;  "  and  that  will  include  of  course  the  Jew  accepti7ig  the 
Gentile.  "Meats  "  (Heb.  9  :  10;  13  :  9)  were,  after  all,  a  part 
of  the  great  quarrel.  The  Jews,  instead  of  being  the  ''  st7'ong'' 
were,  strangely  enough,  the  "  weak  "  (14  :  i),  and  Paul  bowed 
to  them  unduly,  when  not  under  inspiration  (Acts  16  13;  21  : 
23,  24),  in  many  a  point  of  unfounded  stickling  for  their  sym- 
bols : — 

7.  Wherefore  accept  each  other,  as  Christ  also  accepted 
you,  to  the  glory  of  God. 

The  points  are  brought  together.  "Accept."  Take  close 
to  each  other  (Philem.  17),  so  the  word  means,  in  the  most 
affectionate  inter-communion.  "  As  Chrst  also  accepted  us." 
What  an  irony !  "  Accept''  a  meat  eater,  or,  to  build  it  a  little 
bigger,  a  man  outside  of  Abraham,  because  Christ  accepted 
us,  and  we,  disgusting  and  abominable  transgressors  !  '"  Ac- 
cept each  other."  Let  it  be  mutual.  The  Gentile  must 
*^  accept*'  the  Jew.  And  now  he  sums  up  on  that  idea  of 
"glory."  As  it  is  "the  glory  of  God"  that  is  shining  out 
in  these  condescensions  of  oar  Sacrifice,  so  let  it  shine  out  in 
us,  "  as  Christ  also  accepted  us  to  the  glo?y  of  God*' 

8.  "For  I  say."  Paul  now  is  to  introduce  his  ultimate 
point  in  the  great  international  quarrel  among  believers  : — 

8.  For  I  say  that  Christ  became  a  servant  of  circumcis- 
ion in  the  behoof  of  God's  truthfulness,  to  confirm  the 
promises  of  the  fathers,  9.  But  that  the  Gentiles,  in  the 
behoof  of  mercy,  might  glorify  God  ;— 

A  various  reading  in  the  seventh  verse  as  between  "  accepted 


CHAPTER  XV.  365 

you"'  and  '■^accepted  us"  is  somewhat  important.  '^Received 
us"  (E.  V.)  would  have  nothing  specific  ;  but  "  received  you  " 
(Re.),  which  has  the  overwhelming  right,  applies  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, to  whom,  in  the  majority,  Paul  was  evidently  writing.  As 
Christ  has  overlooked  all  narrowness  of  race,  and  "  accepted 
you"  so  do  you  '*  accept  each  other."  You  the  majority,  and  you 
the  minority,  ''^accept"  alike  ;  ''for" — and  now  he  brings  for- 
ward an  argument  (v.  8),  "Christ"  was  undoubtedly  "a  ser- 
vant of  circumcision."  He  was  circumcised  Himself,  and, 
through  His  mother,  was  a  devotee  of  Israelitish  ordinances 
(Lu.  2  :  22  ;  "  their"  not  ''her  ").  Moreover,  He  was  "a  ser- 
vant of"  the  circumcised.  He  rarely  abandoned  Palestine.  His 
chief  centre  was  Jerusalem.  And  it  was  not  all  trial  of  the 
Syrophenician  when  He  said,  "  It  is  not  meet  to  take  the  chil- 
dren's bread,  and  to  cast  it  unto  dogs  "  (Matt.  15  :  27).  The 
Jews  were  evidently  building  upon  this,  and  it  is  a  brief  theory 
of  such  conduct  in  our  Lord  that  is  now  coming  forward  as  a 
shelter  for  the  heathen. 

YdM\^.(\m\\.^  z.  servant  ship  of  Christ  to  ^'circumcision"  and 
then,  in  two  irrefragable  ways,  first,  by  the  intention  of  all  this, 
and,  second,  by  their  own  positive  Scriptures,  shows  that 
Christ  was  to  flow  over  from  the  Jew,  and  by  the  very  force 
of  its  Jewish  beginning  make  His  ministry  bless  both  them  and 
the  nations. 

"  For  I  say"  (This  is  the  way  Paul  often  gathers  himself 
up,  Gal.  3  :  17;  5  :  16;  Eph.  4  :  17).  "  I  say"  Christ  did  really 
^'accept  you  "  and  all  nations  ;  for  though  He  was  "  a  servant  of 
"circumcision"  yet  it  was  (i)  to  fulfil  prophecy;  and  as 
prophecy  is  not  made  simply  to  be  fulfilled,  it  was  (2)  to 
secure  certain  advantages,  for  the  sake  of  which  the  things 
predicted  were  ordered  to  come  to  pass.  In  the  first  place, 
therefore,  it  was  *' in  the  behoof  of  G-od's  truthfulness  "  to 
accomplish  the  fulfilment  of  "the  promises  of  the  fathers, 
but,"  "  in  the  second  place,  "in  thebehoof  of  (God's)  mercy, 
that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God ; "  all  of  which  he  props 
by  ample  quotations  : — 


366  ROMANS. 


For  this  cause  I  will  confess  thee  among  the  Gentiles, 
And  sing  unto  thy  name. 

10.  And  again  it  says,— 

Rejoice  ye  Gentiles,  with  His  people. 

11.  And  again,— 

Praise  the  Lord  all  ye  Gentiles, 
And  let  all  the  peoples  bless  Him. 

12.  And  again  Isaiah  says,— 

There  shall  be  the  root  of  Jesse, 

And  He  that  arises  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles ; 

On  Him  shall  the  Gentiles  hope. 

Put  all  this  together. 

Christ  was  beyond  doubt  "  a  servant  of  circumcision  "  (v.  8)  : 
confined  Himself  to  Palestine  ;  conformed  Himself  to  heredi- 
tary ordinance  ;  consigned  Himself  to  Israelitish  following  ; 
conceived  Himself  as  brought  into  being  for  these  two  results, 
— first,  that  the  prophecies  might  be  fulfilled  which  made  His 
whole  kingdom  to  bs  started  among  the  Jews  (Is.  2  :  3),  and, 
second,  that  by  their  vigorous  beginning  it  might  be  set  up  the 
more  vigorously  among  themselves  and  among  other  nations: 
all  this,  made  clear  by  a  certain  remorseless  logic,  namely, 
that  their  own  Scriptures  teemed  with  it ;  that  the  whole  out- 
come of  it  was  their  own  ;  that  words  of  which  they  made 
idols  expressed  it  perfectly  ;  for  it  was  this  form  of  annihila- 
ting appeal  with  which  the  apostle  annulled  their  prejudice  all 
through  this  sharpest  and  grandest  of  the  inspired  epistles. 

"Of  the  fathers"  (v.  8).  Such  is  the  Greek  ;  and  '' fo  the 
fathers''  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  for  which  the  Revisionists  supply 
^^ given'' 2i\\A  our  old  English  version  supplies  **  w«^^,"  are 
not  so  correct.  Paul  could  easily  have  said  that.  ''  The 
promises  of  the  fathers  "  is  the  more  comprehensive  expres- 
sion, for  it  brings  upon  the  horizon  others'  good,  as  well  as 
for  the  Jews.  It  was  flattering  to  the  Jew,  for  it  made 
those  demi-gods  of  Israel  depositaries  for  the  whole  world,  as 


CHAPTER  XV.  367 

well  as  for  the  oaths  and    pledges  which   were    only  for  their 
people. 

13.  He  follows  with  a  benediction,  in  which  we  are  to  be 
wide  awake  for  particles,  as  indeed  we  ought  to  be  in  all 
Scripture.  "But"  is  not  to  be  changed  into  ''now''  (E.  V.  & 
Re.).  Paul  has  been  arguing  of  great  national  prophecies. 
He  turns  to  immediate  prayers.  And  then  afterward  to  their 
own  witness  of  the  Spirit  (v.  14).  And,  following  that,  to 
^'promises''  to  him  (v.  15),  and  evidences  to  be  derived  from 
his  own  mission  to  the  Gentiles  (v.  16).  All  these  he  starts 
upon  with  "but"  (fJf).  We  must  not  omit  it.  '' But  God.** 
For  however  much  we  may  look  to  promises  as  old  as  Abra- 
ham, what  the  present  may  do  for  us  is  not  to  be  overlooked. 
God  filling  a  man  with  all  joy  is  a  better  evidence  in  kind 
than  law  or  prophet.  Have  these  other  evidences,  *'but"— 
There  is  the  force  of  the  particle.  "  T/ie  God  of  hope " 
(E.  V.  &  Re.).  This  would  be  well  enough  in  almost  any 
other  sentence.  But  here  he  has  been  talking  of  "the  hope" 
(v.  4  ;  see  8  :  24).  Moreover,  the  word  has  just  been  written, 
"  Ofi  Him  shall  the  Gentiles  hope  "  (v.  12).  The  omissions  will 
most  uncomfortably  appear  if  we  throw  together  the  whole 
genuine  translation  : — 

13.  But  may  the  God  of  the  hope  fill  you  with  all  joy 
and  peace  in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  the  hope 
through  power  of  a  Holy  Spirit. 

14.  "But."  The  apostle  strikes  again  with  evidences  that 
are  personal  and  still  more  close.  "  I  myself  am  persuaded." 
And  lest  they  should  ask  him,  How  ?  he  appeals  in  the  next 
verse  to  "  the  grace  given  to  (him)."  And  lest  they  should 
laugh  at  the  conceit,  he  appeals  in  the  next  verse  to  "signs 
and  wonders,"  which,  of  course,  were  a  firm  base  for  all  that 
he  could  claim  : — 

14.  But  I  have  become  persuaded,  my  brethren,  even  I 
myself  in  your  behalf,  that  even  ye  yourselves  are  full  of 
goodness,  filled  with  all  the  knowledge,  able  even  to  in- 
struct one  another. 

This  is  all  reduction  on  the  part  of  the  apostle  of  argument 


368  ROMANS. 

and  proof  down  to  their  own  time.  The  prophets  prophesied 
of  us,  he  had  said  (vs.  9-12),  '^ but''  then  also  I  am  a  prophet. 
This  may  be  a  very  wild  and  a  very  bold  claim  (roAiiTjpoq),  ''  but  " 
there  are  the  miracles  (v.  19).  And,  claiming  to  be  a  prophet, 
I  return  with  that  prophetic  insight  back  to  you,  and  declare 
that  "  you  yourselves  "  (v.  14)  are  evidences,  "full  of  good- 
ness, filled  with  all  the  knowledge,  able  even  to  instruct 
one  another;  "  and,  therefore,  needing  not  to  look  to  the 
prophets  to  know  that  Gentiles  may  be  saved  (vs.  9-12),  but 
being  evidences  yourselves  of  the  mercy  of  God  to  Gentile 
nations. 

15.  "But."  These  particles  move  swiftly  forward.  This 
is  the  third  ^' buty  The  prophecies  favor  the  Gentiles  (vs.  9- 
12),  ^^  but''  (i)  may  God  settle  the  fact  by  actually  blessing  you, 
and  by  filling  you  with  all  Joy  and  peace  in  believing  "  (v.  13).  Not 
only  so,  ^^  but  (2)  I  have  become  persuaded  that  He  has  blessed 
you,  and  that  you  are  ^^  full  of  goodness,"  having  become  evi- 
dences against  the  Jewish  narrownesses  yourselves.  These 
evidences  might  be  doubted,  "  but"  (3) — Now  we  will  add  all 
the  remainder  of  the  testimony  : — 

15.  But  I  have  written  the  more  boldly  in  some  measure, 
as  one  admonishing  you,  on  the  ground  of  the  grace  given 
to  me  of  God,  16.  That  I  might  be  a  public  oflacer  of 
Christ  Jesus  in  respect  to  the  Gentiles,  serving  in  priestly 
form  the  Gospel  of  God,  that  the  presenting  of  the  Gentiles 
in  sacrifice  may  be  acceptable,  being  sanctified  through  a 
Holy  Spirit. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Paul  has  two  ends,  which  indeed  may 
be  concentred  into  one  ;  first,  that  the  Gentiles  might  be 
accepted  as  legitimate  saints,  and,  second,  that  he  himself 
might  be  listened  to  as  their  legitimate  apostle.  His  strongest 
argument  is  in  the  nineteenth  verse  : — 

17.  I  have  therefore  a  ground  of  boasting  in  Christ  Jesus 
in  things  pertaining  to  God. 

His  strongest  argument  is  two  things, — miracle  and  Gentile 
conversions.  Perhaps  we  had  better  say  one  thing,  for  the 
"  power  of  signs  "  and  "  the  power  "  of  the  new  birth,  what 
are  they  but  the  same  ghostly  attestation  ? — 


CHAPTER  XV.  369 

18.  For  I  will  not  dare  to  say  anything  of  those  things 
which  Christ  has  not  wrought  by  me  in  order  to  Gentile 
obedience  in  word  and  deed,  19.  In  power  of  signs  and 
wonders,  in  power  of  a  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  from  Jerusalem 
and  round  about  unto  Illyricum  I  have  thoroughly  ful- 
filled the  Gospel  of  Christ, 

*'In  some  measure"  (v.  15).  "I  have  written  the  more 
boldlyin  some  measure."  This  modest  disclaimer  of  pre- 
tending to  too  much,  must  be  traced  to  what  has  gone  before. 
From  eaters  of  meat  Paul  had  risen  to  the  (ientiles,  absorbing 
the  petty  difficulty  about  flesh  into  the  grander  feud  between 
the  *'  Greeks"  and  the  Israelitish  people.  He  had  appealed 
again  to  their  law,  and  showed  that  it  accepted  the  heathen. 
And  then,  as  we  have  just  been  seeing,  he  breaks  off  from 
that,  and  comes  to  the  very  evidence  at  our  doors.  For  hea- 
then men  /^^^/been  accepted.  "  Ye  yourselves  are  full  of  good- 
ness'' (v.  14).  Now  it  is  after  this  appeal  to  their  own  exhib- 
ited acceptance  that  he  uses  this  expression  of  reserve  ; "  / 

have  writteti  the  7nore  boldly  in  some  jneasure^  The  prophets 
have  heralded  the  Gentiles  ;  but  then  also  1  am  a  prophet. 
And  ye  have  heralded  yourselves.  But  then  I  bear  witness  to 
that  fact  *'M^  more  boldly  in  some  w^<z.f«r^,"  because,  not  only 
do  ye  exhibit  it  yourselves,  but  I,  who  am  a  **  discerner  of  spir- 
its "  (i  Cor.  12  :  lO)  announce  it  as  an  inspired  verity.  And 
I  attest  my  right  to  boldness,  because  "from  Jerusalem 
round  about  unto  Illyricum,  in  power  of  signs  "  I  have 
built  the  base  of  these  divine  annunciations. 

"  Public  officer  of  Christ  "(v.  16, 7xLrovpy6<;,  from  7.a6<:,pcople)\ 
not  merely  "  minister  "  (  E.  V.  &  Re.).  "  Serving  in  priestly 
form  ;  "not  merely  *'  ministering  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  "  Presenting 
of  the  Gentiles  in  sacrifice ;  "  the  whole  a  consistent  allegory. 
Paul  stands  up  to  the  altar  'kurov()y6q,  a  servant  of  the  people  ; 
'' serving  in  priestly  form  ;''  offering  up  ''  the  Gentiles  in  sacri- 
fice ;  "  and  claiming  now  as  the  point  of  his  speech  that  they 
are  "  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well  pleasing  to  God  through  Jesus 
Christ." 

20.  But  counting  it  mine  honor  thus  to  preach  not  where 


370  ROMANS. 

Christ  has  been  named,  lest  I  be  building  on  another  man's 
foundation  ;    21.  But  in  the  manner  written  :— 

They  to  whom  no  announcement  of  Him  came,  shall 

see ; 
And  they  who  did  not  hear  shall  understand. 

**  In  the  manner  written  "  (v.  21).  This  corresponds  to 
"thus"  in  the  twentieth  verse.  "  Not  to  preach "  in  that 
way,  but  this  way  (/ca(9wc).  Merely  "■  strived''  (E.  V.),  or  "  7}iak- 
ing  it  my  aim  "  (Re.,  v.  20)  is  too  general.  We  are  to  "  adorn  " 
the  doctrine  of  Christ.  And  Paul  makes  it  his  Ka'Adv  or  noble 
work  (Rom.  12  :  17),  to  play  the  apostle,  and  pioneer  the  way 
for  the  after  labors  of  the  Kingdom. 

22.  "Wherefore;"  not  only  because  I  preferred  pioneer 
work,  but  because,  at  an  earlier  day,  when  such  work  might  be 
done  at  Rome,  I  was  so  engrossed  ;  "  I  have  been  hindered 
by  many  things."  We  have  no  right  to  sa.y  ^' ma?jy  times" 
(E.  v.,  marg.  &  Re.),  or  "  much  "  (E.  V.),  for  the  simple  reason 
that  such  readings  can  never  prevail.  As  long  as  to.  ttoTOm  is  a 
great  deal  more  catholic,  and  cannot  possibly  be  forbid  of  its 
meaning  as  a  general  neuter,  the  form  "  ma?iy  things,''  so  long 
as  it  makes  excellent  sense,  will  always  return  : — 

22.  Wherefore  also  I  have  been  hindered  by  many  things 
from  coming  to  you. 

23.  "But  now."  Meyer's  idea  that  the  '^  wherefore**  {y. 
22)  cannot  refer  to  his  pioneer  preferences,  or  Rome  would  be 
no  "place"  for  him  ever,  forgets  two  announcements  of  the 
apostle,  first,  that  chances  for  such  work  were  giving  out 
where  he  was,  and,  second,  that  he  was  to  pass  through 
Rome  on  a  still  grander  and  wider  enterprise  of  pioneer  en- 
deavor : — 

23.  But  now,  having  no  more  place  in  these  parts,  but 
having  a  strong  desire  these  many  years  to  come  to  you, 
24.  Whensoever  I  take  my  journey  into  Spain  I  hope  on 
that  account  in  my  journey  through  to  see  you,  and  to  be 
brought  on  my  way  thitherward  by  you,  when  first  in 
some  measure  I  have  been  satisfied  with  your  company. 

24.  "  /  will  come  to  you  "  (E.  V.)  is  undoubtedly  an  interpo- 


CHAPTER  XV,  371 

lation.  The  uniform  verdict  is  that  we  are  to  throw  that 
phrase  out,  and  that  we  are  to  consider  the  sentence  as 
broken  at  the  end  of  the  verse  (see  Re.),  then  that  it  is  to 
be  resumed  with  an  awkward  "  /  say  "  (Re.),  so  as  to  start 
again  in  the  twenty-fifth  verse.  We  have  had  scores  of  such 
expedients  in  the  Bible  (2  :  20,  21  ;  5  :  12  ;  16  :  27)  ;  and  we 
do  not  remember  one  that  was  really  necessary.  The  Greek 
at  fault  is  yap  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse.  Some  men  would 
manage  by  casting  that  out.  But  while  the  authority  for 
casting  out  the  other  is  absolutely  complete  (A  B  C  D  F  X), 
the  authority  in  the  instance  of  yap  must  be  reckoned  nothing 
(F).  We  have  to  accommodate  ourselves  to  its  being 
kept,  and  beyond  all  doubt  there  are  instances,  though  exceed- 
ingly rare  (Matt.  1:18;  Rom.  9  :  17*),  where  ydp,  in  its  illative 
effect,  retires  from  its  more  usual  position.  We  have  given  it 
its  required  force  by  the  expression  **  on  that  account.**  And 
if  this  exception  to  the  general  idiom  is  allowed,  all  lies 
smooth,  and  both  phenomena  are  explained  ;  first,  the  spurious 
copying  in  of  ''  /  will  come  to  you  "  (E.  V.\  or,  second,  the 
equally  unauthenticated  plan  of  rejecting  yap  in  order  to  ac- 
complish the  same  purpose  of  a  continuous  reading  of  the 
sentence. 

Whether  Paul  ever  went  to  Spain  is,  of  course,  the  old  con- 
troversy. If  he  was  imprisoned  twice,  he  may  have  done  so, 
but  even  then  it  is  unsettled.  If  he  was  imprisoned  once  (I 
mean  at  Rome),  we  hardly  can  suppose  he  did  go  ;  and,  in 
either  case,  the  plan  of  the  journey  must  have  been  different 
from  any  which  he  here  contemplates.  Among  the  nota- 
bilia  of  exegetes  a  larger  room  ought  to  be  allowed  for  those 
things  which  it  is  practically  certain  we  never  will  be  able 
even  to  conjecture. 

*  This  unnoticed  bearing  of  yap  becomes  strangely  telling  in  Rom.  9  :  17. 
"  So  then  it  is  with  this  animus,"  that  is,  in  the  light  of  the  previous  passage 
(v.  16),  "that  the  Scripture  says  to  Pharaoh,  For  this  very  cause  have  I 
raised  thee  up,  that  I  might  show  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  might 
be  declared  throughout  all  the  earth." 


372  ROMANS, 

25.  But  now  I  go  to  Jerusalem  to  minister  to  the  saints^ 

This  is  not  exactly  a  high  ideal  of  "  Jerusalem  "  believers. 
Why  were  they  "  poor  ?  "  And,  with  the  habits  engendered  by 
the  gospel,  why  were  they ''/^^r  "  so  long?  A  famine  had 
accounted  for  it  (Acts  ii  :  28,  29),  and  they  had  had  bitter 
persecutions  (i  Cor.  7  :  26).  But  the  famine  was  twenty  years 
before,  and  the  persecutions  were  scarcely  general — except 
perhaps  in  cutting  off  the  humbler  classes  from  the  opportu- 
nity of  labor.  Jerusalem  was  the  metropolis  of  the  Jews.  All 
society  was  builded  upon  the  continuance  of  their  faith.  The 
threats  of  a  new  religion  would  seem  traitorous.  Few  nobles 
would  embrace  it.  Few  of  the  middle  class,  unless  roused  by 
a  very  miracle  of  grace.  And  masses  of  common  people 
would  be  the  "  saints ; "  impostors  in  many  an  imaginable 
case  (Phil.  3  :  18)  :  **/^^r,"  because  they  had  never  been  rich; 
and  slow  to  be  moved,  in  their  accustomed  poverty,  to  the 
higher  and  nobler  purposes  of  a  diligent  religion. 

Besides,  they  had  "  had  all  things  in  common  "  (Acts  4  :  32). 
This  would  be  poison  to  a  modern  religionist.  Luke  merely 
records  it.  He  nowhere  says  it  had  the  divine  approbation. 
We  believe  much  in  scripture  is  merely  stated  without  com- 
ment (Judges  7  :  16  ;  Jo.  21  :  3).  To  our  modern  thought 
the  sinking  of  estates  and  the  feeding  of  the  lazy  by  the  dili- 
gent, would  be  enough  to  blight  business,  and  bring  the 
provinces  to  be  appealed  to  for  a  century  of  years.  Those 
Ananias  scenes  were  probably  a  mistake  ;  and  if  the  apostles 
do  not  say  so,  it  is  like  Paul's  circumcising  Timothy  (Acts  16  : 
3),  a  thing  of  which  we  have  a  right  to  judge,  and  in  respect 
to  which  we  are  not  in  the  least  instructed  by  the  actual  nar- 
rative. 

26.  For  Macedonia  and  Aehaia  have  thought  it  well  to 
make  some  contribution  to  the  poor  among  the  saints  at 
Jerusalem  ;  27.  For  they  thought  it  well,  and  are  really 
debtors  of  those  people. 

The  Jews,  as  some  one  has  remarked,  had  been  "  the  librari- 
ans of  the  Christian  world."  They  had  borne  the  bondage  of 
the  faith  (Acts    15  :   10),  and    had  been  rewarded  for  it    by 


CHAPTER  XV.  373 

manifold  conversions  (3  :  2).  Their  nation  had  contributed 
Christ  (9:5)  and  perhaps  Paul  was  gently  hinting  that  they 
had  contributed  him  ;  and  that  Gentiles  had  flocked  into  the 
church  through  the  direct  instrumentality  of  his  own  apostle- 
ship. 

27. —For  if  the  Gentiles  have  partaken  of  the  spiritual 
things  of  those  people,  they  are  bound  also  publicly  to 
serve  them  in  fleshly  matters. 

Simply  ''to  t?iinister''  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  is  not  far  from  the 
truth  ;  but  why  not  preserve  the  Greek  ?  The  individual  Gen- 
tile could  not  pay  back  the  individual  Jew,  but  he  could 
'^leiTovpyTjaai,  that  is,  literally,  7uork  for  the  people  Q.aoq).  He  could 
give  back  in  a  public  way  "fleshly"  things  {''carnal,'"  E.  V. 
&  Re.,  has  slided  from  its  sense)  in  return  for  "  the  spiritual 
things"  which  Christ  and  His  Israelitish  "saints''  had  been 
the  means  of  for  the  heathen. 

28.  Having,  therefore,  completed  this,  and  sealed  this 
fruit  to  them,  I  will  come  on  by  you  into  Spain.  29.  But  I 
know  that,  coming  to  you,  I  will  be  coming  in  a  fulness  of 
Christ's  blessing. 

"  And  sealed  this  fruit  to  them."  This  is  one  of  those 
fine  passages  that  Paul's  terseness  causes  to  be  lost.  No  com- 
mentator gets  it  !  The  "fruit"  here  spoken  of  is  not  for  the 
Jews,  but  for  the  Gentiles.  What  a  noble  division  for  a  sermon  ! 
In  the  first  place,  " the  fruit''  of  alms-giving  is  not  for  the 
receiver  but  for  the  giver.  In  the  second  place,  Paul  had 
raised  that  "fruit"  for  Macedonia,  and  in  the  third  place,  he 
had  "sealed  (it)  to  them."  "  The  fruit"  of  their  alms-deed 
would  be  for  their  eternal  well  being.  It  seems  sad  that 
such  a  sentence  should  be  secreted  for  hundreds  of  years. 

But,  now,  the  reasons  for  this  lying  in  secret  !  Good  schol- 
ars will  smile  at  us,  and  at  our  newly  suggested  signification. 
And  they  will  say,  The  sense  is  impossible.  And  it  will  be  all 
the  more  easy  to  see  it  if  it  be  so,  or,  whether  that  verdict  can  be 
maintained,  because  the  reasons  for  the  whole  are  built  upon  a 
single  pronoun.  If  we  examine  the  passage  we  will  find  avroq, 
in  its  different  shapes,  four  times  ;  twice  as  avrwv  (v.  27),  and 


374 


ROMANS. 


twice  as  airoz?  (vs.  27,  28).  It  will  be  impossible  to  imagine,  it 
will  be  said,  that  three  of  these  pronouns  (v.  27)  refer  to  one 
class  or  body  of  men  and  one  (v.  28)  to  the  other. 

It  would  seem  hard  to  go  back  to  the  "  vulgarity  "  (Godet) 
of  imagining  Paul,  in  this  solemn  epistle,  to  have  narrated 
that  the  money  sent  by  him  had  been  sealed  up  !  and,  in  fact, 
almost  impossible,  after  the  nobler  and  grander  significance  ; 
but  what  are  we  to  do  ?  There  have  been  immense  strugglings 
about  the  sense,  and  that  is  a  suspicious  indication  ;  but  look 
at  the  Greek  !  Men  will  laugh  at  the  intimation  that  Paul 
could  suddenly  have  changed  in  the  use  of  the  pronoun  avroq. 
But  let  us  look  at  that.  Is  Greek  any  different  from  English  ? 
Look  at  the  English.  '*  //  hath  pleased  them  verily,  and  their 
debtors  they  are.  For  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made  partakers 
of  their  spiritual  things,  their  duty  is  also  to  minister  to  them  in 
carnal  things''  {y.  2']^.  Is  there  any  fixity  of  the  pronoun 
there  ?  Besides,  who  gave  us  such  certainty  in  the  Greek  ? 
The  grammars  talk  very  differently  (Winer,  §22:4,  b).  And 
so  does  the  Bible.  In  Mark  we  read,  "  They  bring  unto  Him 
{avri^^  Christ)  a  blind  man,  and  exhort  Him  {avT6v,  Christ)  that 
He  should  touch  him  (amov,  the  man)."  What  says  the  pro- 
noun here  ?  See  also  Mark  9  :  27,  28.  And  again,  in  John 
II  :  37,  with  the  pronoun  ovroq.  "  Could  not  omoq,  which  opened 
the  eyes  of  the  blind,  have  caused  that  even  ovroq  should  not 
have  died  ?  "  If  any  one  greatly  prefers,  he  might  consider  the 
closing  avToiq  to  belong  to  all  the  parties  in  the  case,  and  sup- 
pose that  ''fruit''  to  both  was  ''sealed,"  that  is,  made  perma- 
nent, by  both  giving  and  being  grateful. 

29.  "But."  Paul's  plan  seems  but  little  for  Rome,  as  he 
confesses  that  he  is  but  taking  them  in  his  route.  "  But,"  he 
says,  "I  know"  that,  notwithstanding  this,  though  my  longer 
errand  is  "to  Spain,"  yet  "to  you  I  will  be  coming  in  a 
fulness  of  Christ's  blessing."  Ae  is  rarely  to  be  lost,  and 
translating  it  "  and"  (v.  29,  E.  V.  &  Re.),  or  "  7iow  "  (v.  30,  E. 
V.  &  Re.),  is  usually  a  measure  that  has  in  the  end  to  be  given 
up. 

30.  For  look  at    its  next  occurrence.     It  is  not,    "Now! 


CHAPTER  XV. 


375 


beseechyouy  hrethre?i''  (E.  V.  <S:  Re.),  but  the  same  disjunctive 
particle  (Jt).  Paul  has  been  saying,  My  aim  is  ''  Spain,"  but 
in  my  mere  passage  through  I  shall  bring  "/<?  ^i?// "  serious 
blessing.  Then  he  inserts  another  <^f.  **  But,"  though  I  ex- 
pect to  bless  you,  I  do  humbly  entreat  you  to  bless  me. 

The  cause  was  reasonable.  He  never  came  to  Rome,  at 
least  upon  his  own  plan  of  travel.  He  was  going  to  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and,  as  he  afterward  found  out  (Acts  21  :  11),  **  not  know- 
ing what  would  befall  (him)  there"  (Acts  20  :  22).  The  par- 
ticles, therefore,  are  exactly  in  place.  When  he  came  to  Rome 
he  would  bless  t/iem  (and  he  did,  though  in  very  different 
circumstances,  Acts  28  :  31). 

"But,"  now,  for  himself  : — 

30.  But  I  exhort  you,  brethren,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  by  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive  together  with 
me  in  prayers  to  God  for  me,  31.  That  I  may  be  delivered 
from  the  unbelievers  in  Judea,  and  that  my  ministration, 
which  is  for  Jerusalem,  may  be  made  acceptable  to  the 
saints,  32.  So  that,  coming  to  you  in  joy  by  the  will  of 
God,  I  may  together  with  you  find  rest. 

30.  Do  not  the  Revisionists  carry  too  far  the  right  to  use 
the  pronoun  by  mere  force  of  the  article,  as  in  this  instance  of 
rnic  before  irpoatvxaiq  ?  King  James,  with  no  such  claim,  inserts 
it  in  italics.  But  a  closer  reading  of  the  passage  would  not 
want  it  at  all,  and  would  reject  it  altogether.  The  prayers 
were  not  to  be  all  theirs,  but  they  were  to  unite  with  ///;// 
"in  prayers"  to  the  Almighty.  31.  "Be  made."  Paul  had 
reason  to  fear  ((ial.  2  :  2,  9)  that  Jerusalem  church  people 
might  find  it  not  altogether  "  acceptable"  to  have  him  as  the 
alms-bestower  from  among  the  churches  of  the  heathen. 
•EA/9a)v  and  iWij  are  indifferent  readings  in  the  thirty-second 
verse.  Neither  authority  nor  sense  gives  us  much  to  choose  in 
our  selection  between  them, 

33.  "But"  (and  here  again,  see  Rom.  15  :  5,  the  apostle 
gives  up  his  own  will  in  respect  to  the  particular  way  in  which 
"God"  shall  bless)  :— 

33.  But  the  God  of  peace  be  with  you  all.    Amen. 


376  ROMANS. 

We  must  not  too  perseveringly  roughen  our  translation  by 
insisting  upon  the  article  ;  but  undoubtedly  there  is  purpose 
in  the  expression,  "  the  God  of  the  peace."  The  correspond- 
ence IS  exact  with  the  fifth  verse.  Paul  had  been  laboring 
there  to  tell  them  how  ''the  hope  of  the  Scriptures  might  be  bred 
by  "  the  patience  and  the  encourage??ient  of  (them)."  He  finishes 
all  thoroughly,  and  then  indulges  himself  in  the  appeal,  "  May 
the  God  of  the  patience  and  the  hope  "  do  all  directly  !  His  course 
is  the  same  in  this  passage.  He  has  ventured  to  be  specific 
with  the  Almighty,  and  to  suggest  to  the  people  what  he 
meant  to  do  for  them  (v.  29),  and  what  he  begged  that  they 
might  pray  for  for  him,  along  with  his  own  prayers  for  his 
deliverance  in  Jewry.  God  blessed  neither.  And  yet  He  blessed 
both.  For  He  answered  these  specific  ''prayers  "  in  "  the  ful- 
ness of  theblessi?ig,''  which  Paul  asked  in  his  more  general  pe- 
tition.  "But,"  as  though  he  had  said,  "6^^^/ "may  choose 
other  ways  to  bless  ;  "  May  the  God  of  the  peace,'' — that  is,  of 
this  whole  peaceful  "rest"  (v.  32)  that  I  am  aiming  to  enjoy 
with  you  in  my  journey,  "be  with  you  all,"  though  I  never 
make  the  journey,  and  though  He  realize  "  the  peace  "  (as  indeed 
Redid)  in  other  and  still  more  glorious  administrations. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

1.  But  I  commend  unto  you  Phoebe,  our  sister,  who  is  a 
deaconess  of  the  church  which  is  in  Cenchreae, 

"  But."  There  are  readings  which  omit  this,  but  the  prepon- 
derance IS  in  its  favor.  I  beg  the  other  things  (15  :  30),  but 
"PhcBbe"  I  directly  send  to  you.  "  A  deaconess."  Not 
SiaKoviaoa.  That  was  a  coined  word,  not  used  till  afterward. 
AidKovog  might  be  feminine.  "Cenchreae"  was  one  of  the 
ports  of  Corinth.  That  there  was  an  office  of  "  deaconess  "  the 
following  are  the  proof  passages  (16  :   i;  i  Tim.  5:9). 

2.  That  ye  may  receive  her  in  the  Lord  in  a  way  worthy 
of  the  saints. 


CHAPTER  XVT.  377 

The  question,  Which  this  means, — "worthy  of*  them  who 
*' receive,"  or  "  worthy  of"  her  who  is  to  be  received,  need 
give  no  difficulty.  The  worthiness  of  the  manner  of  the  act 
is  traceable  to  the  saintship  of  both  parties. 

2.— And  that  ye  provide  her  in  whatever  matter  she  may 
have  need  of  you;  because  also  she  herself  has  been  a  pa- 
troness of  many,  and  of  me  myself. 

Not  simply  a  ''  succorer''  (R.  V.  &  Re.),  but  a  woman  of 
position,  who  could  stand  before  one  (T/jo<Tranf,  feminine  of 
TrpoaTdrr/c) ,  and  open  the  way.  It  will  be  observed  that  Paul 
puts  this  woman  first.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  she 
was  the  carrier  of  his  epistle  (see  closing  inscription),  and  may 
very  well  have  been  sent  by  Paul  to  conciliate  the  Roman 
churches,  herself  *'  a  deaconess  "  in  another  communion. 

3.  Greet  Prisca  and  Aquila,  my  fellow  laborers,  in  Christ 
Jesus, 

"Prisca"  is  the  original  name.  Priscilla  is  a  term  of  en- 
dearment {di?nin.,  Acts  18  :  2).  The  wife  stands  first,  per- 
haps as  the  more  prominent  and  active  worker. 

4.  Who  for  my  soul's  sake  bowed  their  own  neck ;  to 
whom  not  only  I  give  thanks,  but  also  all  the  churches  01 
the  Gentiles.  5.  And  greet  also  the  church  which  is  at 
their  house. 

We  have  not  the  smallest  clue  to  what  the  apostle  means 
by  this  bowing  of  the  neck.  No  incident  explains  it.  We  are 
left  sheerly  to  the  lan<T;uage.  The  mere  probabilities  of  the 
language  seem  to  intimate  a  moral  bowing  rather  than  one 
upon  a  scaffold.  In  the  first  place,  i|"',r'/.  i"  ^^'^^  wide  majority 
of  cases,  means  "soul."  In  the  second  place,  putting  do^vn 
the  "neck"  (for  that  is  the  distinct  Greek),  means  generally 
humiliation  (Gen.  49  :  8  ;  Mi.  2  :  3).  In  Eastern  war  the  victor 
set  his  foot  upon  the  neck  (Jos.  10  :  24).  In  the  third  place,  the 
word  is  **  neck,''  not  *'  necks  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  which  points  again 
to  other  than  a  literal  exposure  to  beheading.  In  the  fourth 
place,  the  word  is  not  lay  down  (E.  V.  &  Re.),  but////  doum  or 
bow.     That  counts  somewhat.     And,  in  the  fifth  place,  some 


378  ROMAN. 

great  act  of  humiliation,  or  modest  retirement  from  the  front, 
on  the  part  of  these  fellow  crafts-people  of  Paul,  would  be 
more  likely  to  be  alluded  to  without  separate  detail,  than  the 
more  stirring  feat  of  risking  their  lives  in  his  succor. 

Some  ingenious  commentator  suggests  that  this  "  church 
(in  the)  house'*  may  have  owed  its  location  (see  also  Acts  i8: 
3  ;  I  Cor.  i6  :  19)  to  certain  weaving  lofts  that  were  necessary 
in  the  tent-making  of  Prisca. 

5.— Salute  Epaenetus,  my  well-beloved,  who  is  a  first 
fruits  of  Asia  unto  Christ. 

While  the  reading  ''  Achaia  "  (E.  V.)  was  preferred,  diffi- 
culty was  made  because  this  honor  was  assigned  to  Stephanas 
in  another  passage  (i  Cor.  16  :  15).  But  a  solution  which 
Meyer  calls  a  ''  make-shift "  (/>/  /oc.)  is  hardly  so  bad  as  that, 
viz.,  to  insist  that  the  appellation  might  be  for  both,  as  there 
is  no  presence  of  the  definite  article. 

6.  Greet  Mary,  who  toiled  in  many  things  for  your 
behalf.  7.  Greet  Andronicus  and  Junias,  my  kinspeople 
and  fellow  prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostles^ 
and  who  were  in  Christ  before  me. 

'lowmv  may  be  either  "Junias"  or  '-' Jiinia''  (Re.,  mar^.). 
We  never  can  tell.  If  it  was  a  man,  it  agrees  a  little  better 
with  the  association,  viz.,  "  among  the  apostles  ;"  but  if  it  is 
a  woman,  and  she  is  in  association  with  her  husband,  it  agrees 
sufficiently  well  with  that,  and  with  other  habits  of  the 
passage. 

8.  Greet  Amplias,  my  beloved  in  the  Lord.  9.  Greet 
ITrbanus,  our  fellow- worker  in  Christ,  and  Stachys,  my 
beloved.  10.  Greet  Appelles,  the  approved  in  Christ. 
Greet  certain  among  the  household  of  Aristobulus. 

10.  Not  "^/lem  ivhich  are  of  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  There  is  a 
care  about  that.  Not  all  this  man's  "  household,"  but  "  cer- 
tain."    The  difference  is  made  by  k  rwv  (see  v.  11). 

11.  Greet  Herodion,  my  kinsman. 

Paul  seems  to  have  had  a  powerful  family*  (v.  7  ;  Acts  23  : 

*  Some  think  the  word  should  be  translated  *' fellow  countrymen  '* 
(Godet). 


CHAPTER  XVI.  379 

i6).    Had  it  been  otherwise,  he  hardly  would  have  been  taught 
by  Gamaliel  (Acts  22:3;    see  also  Acts  22  :  25-29). 

11.— Greet  such  of  the  house  of  Narcissus  as  are  in  the 
Lord. 

See  com.,  verse  10. 

12.  Greet  Tryphaena  and  Tryphosa,  toilers  in  the  Lord, 
Greet  the  beloved  Persis,  who  toiled  in  many  ways  in  the 
Lord. 

These  {raq  and  r/r/c)  are,  of  course,  all  women. 

13.  Greet  Rufus,  the  chosen  one  in  the  Lord,  and  her 
who  is  both  his  mother  and  mine. 

It  is  not  an  obscure  conjecture,  but  a  lively  probability,  that 
this  "Rufus"  was  the  child  of  the  cross-bearer,  Simon  (Matt. 
27  :  32),  and  that  the  "  mother  "  was  the  wife  of  this  African, 
and  herself  a  negress.  If  Simon  was  converted  by  his  advent- 
ure, and  his  conversion  saved  his  wife,  and  his  wife  trained 
her  children,  and  her  children  became  distinguished  in  the 
church,  and  she  herself  most  active  and  tender  in  her  piety, 
how  interesting  does  that  scene  among  the  soldiers  immedi- 
ately make  itself.  And  yet  these  //>,  which,  stated  as  we 
have  done,  seem  almost  ridiculous,  are  bound  by  the  strongest 
links  when  we  connect  them  by  the  name  of  ^''  Rufus ^  It  is 
not  at  all  likely  that  there  were  two  Rufuses  in  the  church, 
and  that  both  of  them  were  only  once  mentioned,  and  that 
each  of  them  was  so  distinguished  as  to  be  named  familiarly 
and  lifted  up  above  other  believers.  But  unless  there  were, 
this  Rufus,  who  here  receives  the  salutation,  was  the  child  of 
the  negro  Simon  (''  the  father  of  Rufus,"  Mar.  15  :  21),  and 
the  child  of  a  woman  so  tenderly  devout,  that  Paul  stands 
ready  to  call  her  **  his  mother  and  mine." 

This  much  is  scarcely  conjecture  ;  but  the  filling  out  of  the 
picture  is  strangely  attractive.  Was  Simon  converted  at  Gol- 
gotha ?  or  did  the  soldiers  mark  some  expression  of  compas- 
sion, and  make  fun  of  him,  or  else  punish  him,  by  laying  on  the 
cross  ?  Did  Simon  convert  his  wife,  or  was  there  in  that  Afri- 
can home  a  most  motherly  saint,  who  led  Simon  to  the  cross. 


38o  ROMANS. 

and  reared  Rufus  and  Alexander  to  be  her  eminent  children  ? 
We  cannot  tell.  But  it  would  be  folly  to  pass  this  sentence 
without  the  thought,  that  here,  thirty  years  farther  on,  the 
scene  at  the  cross  might  be  bringing  the  ripe  fruits  of  a 
glorious  and  divinely  recorded  influence  of  a  wonderful  devo- 
tion. 

14.  G-reet  Asyncritus,  Phlegon,  Hermes,  Patrobas,  Her- 
nias, and.  the  brethren  that  are  with  them. 

These  may  or  may  not  be  names  since  traditional  in  the 
earliest  writings. 

15.  Greet  Philologus  and  Julia,  Nereus  and  his  sister 
and  Olympas,  and  all  the  saints  that  are  with  them. 

There  seems  no  familiar  name  here. 

16.  Greet  one  another  in  a  holy  kiss.— 

A  command,  like  washing  the  saints  feet  (i  Tim,  5  :  10),  or 
taking  off  our  shoes  for  reverence  (Mar.  i  :  7),  or  anointing 
guests  with  oil  (Lu.  7  :  46),  scarcely  meant  to  be  for  all  time, 
but  illustrative,  and  in  that  day  a  suitable  means  of  express- 
ing good  will  and  customary  consideration  for  our  brethren. 

16.— All  the  churches  of  Christ  greet  you. 
17.  "But."     Turning  from  what  is  affectionate  and  good, 
Paul   brings   before   them   the    possibilities   of   discord   and 
evil  : — 

17.  But  I  exhort  you,  brethren,  to  have  a  view  to  those 
who  create  the  divisions  and  the  occasions  of  stumbling, 
contrary  to  the  lessons  ye  have  learned,  and  do  ye  turn 
away  from  them. 

"Lessons"  is  better  \h2iXs.  ^'^  teaching ''  (Re.,  ;;/^r^.)  in  the 
mere  matter  of  English  ;  for  we  cannot  say,  "Ye  have  learned 
teaching."  And  it  is  better  than  "  doctrine  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  in 
the  matter  of  the  sense;  for  the  ^t^axnv  was  practical  as  well  as 
theoretical,  and  "  doctrine  "  has  too  circumscribed  and  uncom- 
prehensive  a  sense. 

18.  For  such  persons  are  not  serving  our  Lord  Christ,  but 
their  own  belly ; 


CHAPTER  XVI.  381 

It  is  not  necessary  to  take  "their  own  belly"  literally,  or 
to  imagine,  with  Meyer,  a  tendency  in  "  such  persons"  ^o  an 
Epicurean  taste,  but  to  understand  it,  as  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  of  intense  selfishness.  When  Paul  says,  "  Whose 
God  is  their  belly  "  (Phil.  3  :  19),  we  are  not  at  all  sure  it  might 
not  comprehend  an  ascetic  Pharisee,  or  a  miser,  too  deadly 
selfish  to  worship  his  ^^  belly''  sufficiently,  if  we  were  to  speak 
in  a  literal  sense. 

18.— And  by  the  good  and  fair  talk  deceive  the  hearts  of 
the  innocent. 

^^  Simple''  [Yu.N .)  is  not  so  good  as  "  innocent "  (Re.), 
because  it  does  not  provide  that  a  man,  anything  but  "  simple^" 
may  be  deceived  because  of  his  itmocence. 

19.  For  your  obedience  has  come  abroad  to  all  men.— 

Therefore  you  may  belong  to  this  very  company  of  guileless 
ones. 

19.— I  rejoice  over  you,  therefore.  But  I  would  have  you 
wise  as  to  that  which  is  good,  but  as  to  the  evil  not  min- 
gling with  it. 

"  Simple  "  (E.  V.)  in  the  eighteenth  verse  is  from  the  Greek 
cLKaKoq,  which  simply  means  not  evil.  And  though  the  Revisers 
improve  the  translation  by  the  word  ''innocent"  (Re.),  yet  it 
is  easy  to  see  that  guilelessness  and  a  certain  sort  of  simplic- 
ity is  at  the  bottom  of  the  text.  But  to  repeat  the  translation 
'*.f/w/>/^"  (E.  V.)  in  the  verse  that  follows  after,  and  for  the 
Revisers  to  say  '' simple"  a.\so,  is  hard  to  understand.  The 
word  is  aKF/jaioc.  It  means  unmixed^  or  not  mixed  unth.  It  never 
means  '*  simple"  in  the  artless  ox  guileless  or  easily  deceived  senst, 
in  any  classic  sentence.  And  Paul  would  be  utterly  at  vari- 
ance if  he  told  of  a  deep  snare  for  the  '*  simple  "  in  one  text, 
and  then  urged  those  endangered  by  it  to  be  ''simple  concern- 
iniT  evil"  (E.  V.  &  Re.)  in  another.  The  word  should  be  bet- 
ter translated  than  it  is  in  other  passages.  We  are  to  be  as 
"■  wise  as  serpents,  and  unmixed  or  uncontaminated  as  doves  " 
(Matt.  10  :    16)  ;   that  is.  we   should   have  the   cunning  of  the 


382  ROMANS. 

serpents,  but  stay  out  from  among  them.  "  That  ye  may  be 
blameless  and  uncontaminated*  (that  is,  not  mixing  with  them)^ 
in  the  midst  of  a  crooked  and  perverse  nation,  among  whom 
ye  shine  as  Hghts  in  the  world  "  (Phil.  2  :   15). 

20.  But  the  God  of  peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under  your 
feet  shortly. 

We  have  not  in  the  English  three  features  of  what  Paul  had 
in  the  Greek  : — first,  the  article  before  uprivriq,  which  might  re- 
call to  a  Greek  mind  "  the  peace "  which  Paul  had  been 
striving  for  in  all  his  recent  directions.  His  greetings  had 
been  redolent  of  it  (vs.  3-16)  ;  and  so  are  now  these  stern 
warnings  against  discord.  We  will  not  introduce  the  article  ; 
but  the  Greeks  had  the  advantage  of  us.  Second,  the  article 
before  "  Satanas,''  and,  third,  the  meaning  of  Satanas,  which 
lay  naked  to  a  Grecian's  eye.  The  language  of  the  Greek 
reveals  more  Paul's  purpose  in  the  uttering  of  such  a  proph- 
ecy. It  all  fits  up  closer  by  the  help  of  what  is  noticed  at  a 
glance  !  I  send  you  fervent  greetings.  But  to  make  it  pos- 
sible to  love  and  to  greet  and  to  help  each  other,  flee  discord. 
Keep  utterly  ufi?nixed  with  agents  and  agencies  of  quarrel. 
Watch  against  being  cheated  of  religious  peace.  And  ^' the 
God  of  the  peace  shall  bruise  the  Adversary  (who  is  at  the 
bottom  of  these  attempts)  under  your  feet  kv  raxuy  quickly  j'* 
and  then  follows  the  usual  benediction  : — 

20.— The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you. 

We  have  not  entered  into  the  ideas  which  would  suppose 
that  these  two  last  chapters  were  fragmentary,  and  were  not 
all  sent  together  through  Phoebe,  or  through  any  other  person, 
to  any  of  the  Romans,  or  to  any  other  of  the  churches.  The 
reasons  for  such  suppositions  are,  that  all  these  fragments,  as 
some  are  disposed  to  name  them,  are  in  no  instance  all  of 
them  in  any  one  known  manuscript.  That  is  a  strong  con- 
sideration. But  our  interest  in  the  whole  thought  is  lessened 
by  the  fact  that  it  makes  not  the  smallest  difference.     How 

*  This  is  the  only  other  New  Testament  case. 


CHAPTER  XVI.  383 

these  sentences  were  fixed,  or  whether  all  were  sent  to  every- 
body, and  whether  some  of  these  closing  matters,  possibly 
whole  salutations,  were  not  meant  for  different  cities,  are  ques- 
tions hardly  worth  answering.  Or,  to  speak  with  more  per- 
fect verity,  they  hardly  concern  a  doctrinal  student  of  the 
Word,  however   much   they   may  interest   explorers   into   the 

text. 

If  Phoebe  went  around  with  different  endings,  and  appended 
this  or  appended  that  at  a  personal  discretion,  what  bearing 
could  it  have  ?  It  might  seem  that  something  of  the  kind 
might  be  discreet.  Or  if  even  some  fragments  are  false,  it 
might  seem  sad  to  add  to  our  uncertainties,  but  how  could 
we  help  it?  and  they  are  really  so  few,  that  the  Word  of  God 
would  remain  singularly  well  kept,  after  all  the  turmoil  of  inter- 
vening generations. 

We  sacrifice  nothing,  therefore,  if  we  treat  Paul's  Greek  as 
though  an  unseparated  monograph.  If  there  be  anything 
spurious,  let  it  be  shown,  like  any  other  false  readmg  in  the 
Bible  If  there  be  anvthing  kept  in  Phoebe's  hands,  and  added 
for  particular  believers,  so  much  the  better.  It  was  part  of 
Paul's  inspiration,  under  the  hand  of  God.  If  there  was 
anything  for  other  people  whose  names  were  on  distant  lists 
(as  some  conjecture  about  Aquila,  Prisca,  Epaenetus,  etc.,),  what 
matter  >  It  has  been  a  blunder  of  the  church  ;  but  how 
strange  that  so  little  of  the  sort  has  tinged  the  inspired  light 
of  this  wonderful  epistle  ! 

21  After  greeting,  in  the  way  that  we  have  seen,  certain  se- 
lected Romans,  he  sends  greeting  generally  from  those  about 
him. 

21.  Timothy,  my  fellow-worker,  greets  you  ;  and  Lucius 
and  Jason  and  Sosipater,  my  kinspeople.  22.  I  Tertius, 
who  wrote  the  epistle,  greet  you  in  the  Lord. 

22  Doubtless  Paul's  amanuensis.  21.  Why  Timothy  is  so 
much  out  of  our  notice,  and  who  Lucius  and  Jason  were  (v. 
21),  we  never  shall  be  able  to  make  certain. 

23.  Gaius,  mine  host,  and  of  the  whole  church,  greets 


384  ROMANS. 

you.    Erastus,  the  treasurer  of  the  city,  greets  you,  and 
Quartus,  the  brother. 

24.  The  weight  of  MS.  authority  is  on  the  whole  against 
the  twenty-fourth  verse*  (see  Revision). 

25.  But  to  Him  who  is  able  to  establish  you  according  to 
my  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to 
the  revelation  of  a  mystery  kept  silent  through  times  eter- 
nal ;  26.  But  now  made  manifest,  and  by  prophetic  writ- 
ings made  known  according  to  an  arrangement  of  the  eter- 
nal God,  to  all  the  nations  unto  an  obedience  of  faith  ;  27. 
To  an  only  wise  God,  be  that  through  Jesus  Christ  to  which 
there  shall  be  glory  forever.    Amen. 

25.  "But;  "as  something  stronger  and  warmer  than  all 
our  salutations  to  each  other.  "  To  Him  who  is  able."  This 
is  more  than  mere  ability  or  power  (see  9  :  22  ;  15  :  i).  It  is 
a  power  to  do  a  thing,  and  yet  be  consistent  with  what  is  eter- 
nally wise.  "According  to  my  Gospel."  That  creates  the 
eternal  consistency,  and  makes  God  ''able''  (3  :  26).  "Estab- 
lish;" see  remarks  upon  this,  i  :  11.  "Mystery."  What 
could  be  more  profound  than  the  plan  of  pardon?  "Kept 
silent," — before  and  after  the  creation  ;  before,  as  a  secret  of  a 
decree  back  in  the  everlasting,  and  after  (v.  26),  till  a  "reve- 
lation "  was  made,  "and  "  {rk)  that  "  by  prophetic  writings, 
according  to  an  arrangement  of  the  eternal  God."  "  Unto 
an  obedience  of  faith."  ''Obedience''  (which  when  we  look 
at  its  very  nature,  love,  is  all  that  is  moral  in  the  world)  is  of 
the  very  nature  of  faith,  and  marks  this,  which  occurs  twice  in 
the  New  Testament,  as  a  very  vital  expression  (stt^'  obedience 
of  faith,"  I  :  5).  27.  "  Only  wise,"  as  He  only  can  be  who 
possesses  foreknowledge  and  power.  All  else  is  venture. 
"To  which."  This  is  the  only  possible  reading  that  gives 
syntax  to  the  sentence.  We  will  not  go  over  the  controver- 
sies. The  puzzle  springs  from  «,  which  cannot  be  gotten  rid 
of.  Our  Bibles  reject  it,  but  out  of  a  sheer  desperation — which 
sanctions  everything;  but  which  must  recoil;  for  few  questioned 

*  24.  "The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  with  you  all.     Amen. " 


CHAPTER  XV I.  385 

syllables    of    the    Greek    stand    on  better  or  more   constant 
authority.     Meyer    solves    the    difficulty   by  the    hackneyed 
thought  that  Paul  forgot  himself.*     It  is  easier  to  take  the 
one    manuscript  (Bj  and   throw  out    the  ^  altogether.      The 
slovenly  apologv  for  the  Holy  Ghost  has  never  in  one  mstance 
prospered  (2  :  20,  21  ;  5  :   i^  ;  15  :  24,  25)  ;  and  it  is  better  to 
imagine  the  very  best  MSS.  to  have  strayed,  than    that    Paul, 
flushed  by  his  work,  has   forgotten   one   single    particle.     We 
come,  therefore,  to  a  solution  which  we  are  surprised   that  no 
scholar  should  suggest,  and  which  is  really  the  only  way  to 
give  absolute  grammar  to  the  expressions.    We  may  flatter  the 
syntactic  speech,  but  we  hardly  writ  it  down  before  we  imag- 
ined purpose  in  it  beyond  the  more  commonplace  ascription. 
Paul  says.  '*  To  him  who  is  able  ;  "  and  we   have  explained  the 
"  able  "  as  meaning  ///  consistency  with  truth.     Paul  paraphrases 
it    as    meaning   ^'according    to    my    gospel ;''  and,  therefore, 
very  naturally  at  the  last,  makes  all  that  he  is  to  ascribe  to 
God    possible  "  through  Jesus  Christ."     And,   therefore,   it 
would    range  with    other  profoundnesses  in  Paul   to  pause  a 
little    in   the  expression,  till  he  can  imagine  the   thing  to  be 
praised,  to  be  actually  achieved.     Look  in  this  light  at  the  6 
in  the  sentence.     It  destroys  the  more  commonplace   reading, 
-  To  the  onlv  wise  God  be  glory  "  (E.  V.).     It  makes  unneces- 
sary  the  ungrammarly  sentence,  "  To  the  only  wise  God  through 
Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  the  glory  forever  -  (Re.)  ;  and  actually 
adds   point   to   Paul  by   making  Divine   Providence  win  the 
honor  before  receiving  it  ;    for  we  put  it  all    in   the    strictest 
grammar  by  saving,  -  Unto  him   who   is  able  to  establish  you, 
,tc    etc,  unto  an  only  wise  God,  be  that  through  Jesus  Christ  to 
which  there  shall  be  glory  forever.     Amen."     Such  pregnancy  of 
6c  is  of  course  notorious.     It  rules  through  all  the  Greek  (Lu. 
9-  36;  23:  14;  Acts  8:  24;  22:  15;  Rom.  14:  22;  15:  18;  2  Cor. 
12  •   17),  but  it  is  especially  Paulinian.     We  have  expounded 


♦  The  Revisers  must  have  agreed  in  this,  for  they  have  adopted  a  sentence 
which  cannot  be  parsed,  and  which  in  the  true  Meyer  sense  loses  itself  in 
its  own  confusion. 


386  ROMANS. 

it  at  length  under  another  sentence  (5  :  12).  If  no  one  is  at- 
tracted to  it  by  preference,  our  notion  is  that  he  must  be 
forced  upon  it  by  the  grammar.  And  Paul  has  an  especial 
fondness,  when  he  has  worn  out  a  more  forth-right  text  (3  : 
20),  to  put  a  pebble  in  it  like  this  (see  Gal.  2 :  16,  kav  ni],  "  save^' 
Re?)^  and  to  turn  it  from  a  common  rut,  and  make  a  reader 
pause  for  a  profounder  meaning. 


EXCURSUS 

ON    THE 

FAMOUS    PASSAGE    IN   JAMES 
(J AS.   2   :   14-26). 

A  shock  of  apparent  discomfiture  attended  our  work  when 
we  discovered  that  Jas.  2  :  14-26,  in  its  actual  Greek,  did  not 
bear  out  the  rendering  of  any  of  our  versions.  It  was  a  great 
surprise  to  us.  The  plain  words,  "  IVas  not  Abrahatn,  our 
father  Justified  by  works?  (E.  V.  &  Re.,  v.  23),  and  then,  most 
deliberately  repeated,  **  In  like  manner^  was  not  also  Rahaby  the 
harioty  justified  by  tc'orks  ?  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.,  v.  25),  and,  plainer  yet, 
"  A  ?nan  is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by  faith  only  "  (E.  V.  ^:  Re., 
V.  24)  seemed  a  God-send  to  our  particular  view.  It  was  a  stroke 
of  amazement  that  upset  the  whole  of  this,  and  confronted  us 
with  a  Greek  which  honesty  of  search  made  us  believe  could 
not  submit  to  any  such  translation. 

Place  the  Greek  before  your  eye  and  judge  whether  James, 
or  any  one  else,  has  fallen  upon  such  an  order,  if  he  meant 
the  two  earlier  texts  to  imply  a  question. 

"  Abraham,  our  father,  was  not  justified  by  works  '*  is 
the  plain  artless  order  of  the  speech.  "Likewise  also 
Rahab  was  not  justified  by  works."  What  are  we  to  do, 
therefore  ? 

An  immediate  search  into  the  whole  of  James  not  only 
revolutionizes  the  epistle,  and  saves  it  from  the  attacks  of 
Luther  and  from  the  bickerings  that  have  lent  it  fame,  but 
actually,  on  a  deeper  look,  rids  it  of  contrariety  with  Paul, 
and  learns  from  it,  better  than  from  Paul,  that  faith  itself  is 
incipient  holiness. 

14.  What  is  the  profit,  my  brethren,  if  a  man  say  he  has 
faith,  but  have  not  works  ?    Can  the  faith  save  him  ? 

This  by  itself  is  very  striking.     "The  faith."     The  Revis- 


388  EXCURSUS, 

ion  says  "  that  faith.''  The  article  warrants  some  attention  to 
its  influence.  We  start,  therefore,  with  the  idea  that  there  are 
two  kinds  of  **faith;"  and  James  agrees  with  Paul  that  one 
kind  is  "  dead"  (vs.  17,  26)  and  that  the  other  kind  is  saving, 
and  that  this  saving  kind  has  works ;  as  we  have  been  labor- 
ing to  expound  it,  is  moral  or  is  the  faith  of  the  conscience  ; 
as  the  Roman  Catholics  declare,  is  ^^  fides  fortnata,''  or,  by  their 
strangely  perfect,  because  original  or  patristic  specification,  a 
"  faith  infused  with  love  ;  "  as  Moses  calls  it,  "  a  faith  counted 
as  righteousness  "  (Gen.  15  :  6)  ;  as  Paul  calls  it,  the  "  receiv- 
ing of  the  love  of  the  truth  "  (2  Thess.  2  :  10)  ;  or,  in  his  epis- 
tle to  the  Galatians  (5  :  6),  what  is  perhaps  the  strongest  testi- 
mony of  all,  "  faith  [kvtpyovfihr],  that  is)  made  active  by  love  ;  " 
as  though  faith,  when  saving,  contained  love  (as  the  atmosphere, 
when  vital,  or  able  to  corrode,  must  contain  oxygen)  ;  so 
bringing  us  back  to  James,  that  "  faith  without  works  is  apyij 
(Greek  a  priv.  and  i/ajw),  inoperative^  or,  more  literally  put, 
ufiworking  "   (v.  20). 

Next  comes  another  expression,  "  dead  according  to  its 
very  self.'*  It  cannot  mean  ''  bei?ig  alone  "  (E.  V.),  for  the 
Greek  does  not  warrant  it.  This  the  Revisionists  have  seen. 
But  then  "  in  itself  (Re.)  has  unspeakably  less  appearance  of 
being  the  sense  (see  Acts  28  :  16).  Why  did  not  Paul  say 
"/«.?  "  "■  According  to''  is  not  only  the  match  for  Kara,  but  is 
the  very  edge  and  essence  of  all  the  thought.  As  the  expres- 
sions," Depart  in  peace ;  be  ye  warmed  and  filled,'*  are  dead 
accordittg  to  their  very  selves^  if  there  be  the  full  indulgence  of 
self,  and  no  outcoming  of  food  and  clothes,  "  so  faith,*' con- 
sidering its  deep  pretentions  ;  taking  it  as  a  belief  in  hell  ;  con- 
sidering it  as  a  profession  of  God  and  Christ  and  sin  and  grace 
and  pardon  and  eternal  life,  if  it  be  not  under  the  impression 
of  any  of  these  things  by  the  light  of  a  new  conscience  and  by 
the  token  of  some  obedience  to  their  claims,  "is  dead,"  just 
as  those  speeches  are, — "  dead"  in  the  very  light  of  the  things 
pretended,  that  is,  ^^  dead"  as  these  three  verses  illustrate  it, 
"  according  to  its  very  self." 

15.  If  a  brother  or  sister  become  naked,  and  be  destitute 


JAMES  II.   :    14-26.  389 

of  daily  food,  16.  And  one  of  you  say  unto  them,  Go  in 
peace,  be  ye  warmed  and  filled,  but  give  them  not  the 
things  needful  for  the  body;  what  is  the  profit  ?  17.  Even 
so  faith,  if  it  have  not  works,  is  dead  according  to  its  very 
self. 

18.  •'  Yea,  a  man  may  say"  (E.  V.  &  Re.).  This  is  one  of 
those  numerous  cases  where  a  sense  is  dashed  at  the  very  cri- 
sis of  a  passage.  James  is  made  to  introduce  by  tlie  word 
aAAa,  which  means  *' but  "with  wonderful  steadiness,  a  sen- 
tence in  which  he  is  to  appear  to  agree  ;  in  fact,  two  verses  (vs. 
18,  19),  which  are  to  be  read  as  lying  in  unity  with  his  whole 
idea.  How  queer  if,  for  the  course  of  whole  centuries,  these 
verses,  like  scores  of  others  in  Scripture,  should  have  been 
read  as  just  the  opposite  of  the  thing  intended. 

18.  But  a  man  will  say,— 

Surely  that  sounds  like  an  objector.  And  all  the  Greek 
agrees.  And  the  twentieth  verse  sounds  like  the  taking  up 
of  a  reply. 

James  seems  to  imagine  that  *'  a  man  "  may  push  the  Jame- 
sian  idea  too  far.  He  means  to  hold  on  to  Paul  in  Paul's  exact 
teaching,  that  "faith"  is  everything.  Nevertheless  he  must 
exalt  the  "works."  But  he  means  now  to  guard  "works" 
on  the  gospel  side,  and  keep  them  from  displacing  "  faith." 
This  is  the  gist  of  the  two  verses  (18,  19).  "  But  a  man  will 
say,"— 

18.— Thou  hast  faith,  and  I  have  works.  Show  me  thy 
faith  by  thy  works,  and  I  will  show  thee  by  my  works  my 
faith.  19.  Thou  believest  that  God  is  one;  thou  doest 
well ;  the  devils  also  believe  and  tremble. 

That  is,  "faith"  in  any  degree,  even  to  that,  rare  among 
the  Pagans,  of  acknowledging  the  unity  of  God,  is,  by  your 
confession  now  ^^  dead  if  it  have  not  works.''  And  how  true 
that  is,  is  made  incontestable  in  the  cases  of  the  demons,  who, 
with  the  brightest  kind  of  faith,  learn  only  to  "  believe  and 
tremble."  "  Works,'*  therefore,  are  the  test,  and  we  need 
less  care  for  ^' faith.''  This  is  the  mistake  which  James 
suffers  to  expound  itself  in  these  two  verses. 


390  EXCURSUS. 

**  Bu/  a  man  will  say,  Thou  hast  faith."  There  is  no  doubt 
about  that.  But  then  the  demons  beHeve,  too,  the  highest  truths. 
"Works  "  are  the  real  token.  So,  when  all  comes  to  all,  you 
have  to  prove  your  ^^  faith  "  by  ''  works.''  Now  why  need  I 
bother  about  the  question  of  ^^  faith  "  at  all  ?  If  '^  works  "  are 
the  vital  thing,  and  you  have  to  exhibit  your  ^^ faith  "  by 
"  works,''  why  may  not  I  show  that  I  have  '^  faith,"  without 
being  really  conscious  of  it  or  in  any  wise  doctrinally  possess- 
ing It,  if  only  I  have  ''  ivorks  ?  " 

Nothing  could  be  more  aptly  looked  into.  If  you,  who 
notoriously  have  faith,  nevertheless  are  not  sure  of  safety  till 
you  have  demonstrated  its  saving  character  by  its  element 
in  works,  why  may  not  I,  who  notoriously  have  works,  or  to 
express  it  more  truthfully,  may  be  imagined  for  the  sake  of 
argument  to  possess  the  works,  ignore  the  faith,  inasmuch  as 
that  is  a  thing  which  the  demons  have,  and  that  in  the  higher 
shape  of  the  unity  of  the  Almighty  ? 

20.  How  finely  now  comes  in  the  character,  "O  vain  man." 
It  is  an  awful  platitude  if  aXkd  means  ^' yea  "  (E.  V.  &  Re.) 
and  the  two  hinging  verses  (vs.  18,  19)  are  all  on  the  side  of 
the  apostle.  But  if  it  is  the  address  of  a  reply,  behold  how 
perfect  it  is  !  James  would  argue,  Faith  is  not  to  be  given 
up.  It  is  all  that  the  Scriptures  demand.  "Abraham, 
our  father,  was  not  made  righteous  by  works."  (v.  21). 
Nor  was "  Rahab "  (v.  25).  Men  must  seek  God  if  they 
would  be  saved.  But  the  faith  of  seeking  does  not  mount 
up  to  being  saving  till  it  becomes  moral  ;  ex  origineUW  it  is  of 
the  Spirit  ;  consequentially  till  it  is  of  the  conscience  ;  till  it 
sees  the  beauty  of  Christ  (Jo.  17  :  3)  ;  till  it  is  "  made  active  by 
love  "  (Gal.  5:6);  till  it  can  be  ''  reckoned  "  as  holy  (Rom. 
4:3);  or,  as  James  expresses  it,  till  it  **  have  works  ;  "  for 
he  does  not  carry  his  point  by  acceding  to  the  caviller  that 
faith  need  not  be  noticed,  but  simply  that  faith  is  everything, 
nevertheless  that  that  faith  is  nothing  that  does  not  show 
itself  by  the  works  of  the  Gospel. 

20.  But  wilt  thou  know,  O  vain  man,  that  faith  without 
works  is  idle  ?    21.  Abraham,  our  father,  wa9  not  made 


JAMES  II.  :    14-26.  391 

righteous  by  works  in  that  he  offered  Isaac,  his  son,  upon 
the  altar.  22.  Thou  8»est  that  faith  worked  with  his 
works,  and  by  works  was  faith  made  to  answer  its  end. 

It  will  be  seen  how  utterly  shapeless  the  next  verse  would  be 
if  the  usual  versions  were  admitted.  If  we  are  to  read,  "  Was 
not  Abraham  justified  by  works  ?  "  (E.  V.  cV'  Re.),  how  absurd 
to  add  (v.  23),  "And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled  that  saith, 
Abraham  believed  God."  But  if  it  is  a  recoil  from  unbeliev- 
ing ''works;'  and  James  is  thoroughly  Pauline,  and  means  to 
insist  on  faith,  and  faith  made  moral,  and  working  with 
works,  then  the  summing  is  in  place  :— 

23.  And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled  that  says:- Abraham 
believed  God,  and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness, and  he  was  called  the  Friend  of  God. 

Let  us   return  now  to  a  few  verbal  intimations.    "  Idle  '»  (v. 
20)  is  a  various  reading,  acknowledged  in  our  day  (see   Re.). 
The  word  is  apyi,  (from    a  priv.  and  tpyu,  without  work)  ;  a  fine 
description    of  its   being  ''  dead''  (vs.  17,  26)  ''Faith  without 
works  is  unworking  ;"  2.ndi\i2.i/xn  all  the   things   to  which   it 
could  be  applied,  came  to  mean  '^  idU,"  and  gradually  came 
to  mean  null  or  just  nothing  at  all  (see,  in  the  verbal  shape, 
Rom.  7  :  2,  6).     "Worked  with"  (v.  22).     That  astounding 
act   of  offering  Isaac  was,  at  bottom,  faith  (see  Heb.  11  :   17, 
material  dative)  ;  but  it  was  a  faith  workmg  with  works  ;  that 
is,  a  faith  with  which  love,  which  is  the  essence  of  good  works, 
is'  incorporate  ;  or,  more   profoundly  still,  a  faith  which  "  has 
works  ;  "  that  is,  a  faith  which  is  a  case  of  love  ;   just  as,  in 
another  case,  love  repines  at  sin,  or  is  or  actuates  true  repen- 
tance.   "Accounted"  (v.  23)  ;  not  strictly.     Abraham's  real 
state  was  positive  sinfulness.     Bui  "  aecou;ited ;  "  as  an  earn- 
est ;  as  a  covenanted  condition  ;  as  a  promise  of  more  ;  as   a 
condition  of  less  sinfulness  than  he  once  submitted  to  ;  as  the 
beginning  of  a  perfect  "righteousness"  in  Augustine's  sense 
(Mignf,   vol,  5  :  pp.    79°^  S67)  ;   incipient  here,  but  growing, 
from  this  advancing   germ,  into  a  perfect  "  righteousness  "  in 
the  Garden  of  the  Lord. 


392  EXCURSUS. 

24.  Do  ye  really  see,*  then,  that  a  man  is  made  righteous 
by  works,  and  not  rather  by  faith  only ;  25.  In  like  man- 
ner as  Rahab,  the  harlot,  was  not  made  righteous  by  works 
when  she  had  received  the  messengers,  and  sent  them  out 
another  way  ? 

This  translation  (vs.  24,  25)  serves  as  a  sufficient  summing 
up. 

26.  For  as  the  body  without  a  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith 
without  works  is  dead  also. 

Luther,  therefore,  was  rash  about  his  "straw  epistle."  The 
whole  idea  of  James  is,  that  salvation  is  alone  by  "  faith  ; "  but 
that,  as  an  unworking  ^^  faith  "  is  null  or  apy^,  "works"  must 
be  an  ingredient  of  the  *'  /aif/i,"  or,  more  philosophically  stated, 
lozje,  which  is  what  is  moral  in  "  works,"  must  be  the  ingredi- 
ent of  "/aifk,"  in  order  that  it  be  saving. f 

*  The  s^etn^  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse  (opdu),  is  different  from  that  in 
the  twenty-second  verse  {^leird),  as  meaning  to  see  intimately  or  down  to  the 
very  bottom. 

f  This  is  the  sound  averment  of  the  Papists,  that  '■^  fides  formata  (saving 
faith)  is  faith  infused  with  love."  What  a  pity  they  trample  their  own  defi- 
nition by  perfectionism  and  supererogatory  excellence  ! 


THE    END. 


